Wednesday, January 20, 2010

January 20 2010: Japan, China, Greece and Geithner

Detroit Publishing Co. Little Italy 1900
Mulberry Street, New York City

Ilargi: The bankruptcy filing of the Japanese -formerly national- airline JAL gets surprisingly little press beyond a litany of numbers. This may not be so wise, since the fact that the Japanese government lets the carrier go down is not exactly without meaning. Tokyo sends a message. And while that can vary from a strong message (we won't pay anymore) to a weak one (we can't pay anymore), there can be little doubt that the intended signal is that Japanese industries, even those too big or too beautiful to fail, may find themselves all alone when they get into trouble. And that is not what they've gotten used to over the past 20 years.

The message may, however, not -only- be for the companies. The liabilities that brought down JAL are to a large extent related to pensions. A slew of respective Japanese administrations has managed to keep the ship afloat and the country quiet by making sure that unemployment rates remained 'passable' and pension obligations stayed intact, if only in name. When JAL could not renegotiate its obligations with retirees (present employees had already accepted huge cuts -some reports claim as much as 50%-), Tokyo said simply: domo origato, but we will not make up the difference.

The first impression is that Japan simply can't pay. Or perhaps that can't and won't are closer than you might think. The country is, according to many reports, headed for a cliff. It’s had three finance ministers in a matter of months. The first died, and the cause was never clarified. The second left weeks ago, after mere weeks of service, because of stress and blood pressure issues. Maybe they know what's coming. And maybe all of Japan should too, when they take a good look at what happened with JAL. Which will continue to fly in a business as usual mode, by the way. Just with less or no debt to shareholders, bondholders and pensioners, and with a massive injection of taxpayers' money.

There's something in that picture that looks frighteningly similar to the US. Remember, Japan kept its head above water for 2 decades on borrowing and public funds, and it now has debts piled up sky high everywhere you look. But it achieved all this against a backdrop of a explosion of cheap credit among its customers, which allowed carmakers and electronics giants to exponentially grow their exports, which in turn poured badly needed tax revenues into public coffers.

That is one thing the US will not have going for it. Or the EU. Or anyone else for that matter. Everybody dreams of financing their deficits with more exports. Everybody dreams that hopefully China will be that next market that will pick up the slack left by the usual clientèle. But make no mistake.

America has run into overwhelming trouble for the simple reason that it has become a land of people who consume but don't produce. China, on the other hand, is a land of people who produce but don't consume. Neither is a viable concept in the medium- to long term. If you can't pay, you can't consume, and if you can't sell, it's no use producing. The one positive thing to take away from this for the Chinese is that they have a much less steep fall ahead of them. They remember where they came from.

So do the Greeks, presumably. Like for all nations that were once grand, it's hard to accept you're no longer king, though. Still, the demise of Greece is highly exaggerated. As I said earlier this week, Greece's financial troubles have become the tool the EU needed to bring down the Euro from its overvaluation vs the US dollar. I since found out that I'm not the only voice to address the issue. So does EU economist Paul De Grauwe :
..... Germany, France and other countries have too big a stake in the long-run viability of their new currency to see Greece do what its politicians might feel they have to do to preserve their alliance with the public sector trade unions—drop the euro, and re-establish their national currency, sufficiently devalued to stimulate exports and economic growth. It is unlikely to come to that—there is so much political capital invested in the euro by the political class that even the stern and parsimonious Angela Merkel will in the end contribute to a bailout fund if necessary. With conditions that turn effective control over Greece's fiscal policy to the ECB or some comparable organization in return for help from fellow members.

Meanwhile, Paul De Grauwe, a Brussels-based economist who advises European Commission President José Manuel Barroso, displayed more than a wry sense of humor when he told reporters: 
"If there are fears now that a breakup of the euro zone will lead to a weakening of the euro, then that is good news. So we should congratulate Greece for getting us out of … having a euro that is too overvalued."

Works like a charm so far. The Euro got hammered again today.

Still, look at the numbers. Greece has 11 million people, Germany, the most populous EU country, has 82 million. The EU has over 500 million. Greek 2008 nominal GDP was $357 billion. Germany's was $3.65 trillion, the EU as a whole $18.4 trillion, the Eurozone (countries that use the Euro) about $12.5 trillion. The size of the Greek population and GDP is far too small to even entertain the notion of allowing it to break up the union.

Germany, France, Holland wouldn't dream of letting Greece fall. It's not even sure they could if they wanted to. They just don't know. A December 2009 paper by Phoebus Athanassiou at the European Central Bank says this:
This paper examines the issues of secession and expulsion from the European Union (EU) and Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). It concludes that negotiated withdrawal from the EU would not be legally impossible even prior to the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, and that unilateral withdrawal would undoubtedly be legally controversial; that, while permissible, a recently enacted exit clause is, prima facie, not in harmony with the rationale of the European unification project and is otherwise problematic, mainly from a legal perspective; that a Member State’s exit from EMU, without a parallel withdrawal from the EU, would be legally inconceivable; and that, while perhaps feasible through indirect means, a Member State’s expulsion from the EU or EMU, would be legally next to impossible. This paper concludes with a reminder that while, institutionally, a Member State’s membership of the euro area would not survive the discontinuation of its membership of the EU, the same need not be true of the former Member State’s use of the euro.

In other words, the EU was conceived like a marriage without pre-nups.

It’s turned real quickly into a cat and mouse game. As long as Brussels doesn’t signal it will bail out Greece, in whatever form, the markets will go after Athens. CDS spreads grow like rabbits. The primary result of that is the downward pressure on the Euro, which happens to be just what Brussels wants. Of course it's a dangerous game as well. Still, all the ECB has to do is signal at the right moment that Greece is indeed covered. Brussels, Berlin, Paris play a game with the markets: though they would never let Greece fall, nobody except them is sure that they won’t. That way they do controlled demolition of the Euro.

An indication that Europe might indeed have the smarts to pull this off comes from New York. That Greece game is just as smart as the French banking regulator, the Commission Bancaire, telling the New York Fed in late 2008 that French law prohibit Crédit Agricole and Société Générale from receiving anything less than full face value, 100 cents on the dollar, on their AIG trades. Société Générale got more US taxpayer AIG bail-out funds than any other bank, including the American ones.

Now that is pretty clever from the French, But even way smarter is that they did it while a few blocks down the road US monoline Ambac was settling its AIG paper for 28 cents on the dollar. With the exact same banks. That is so well played by the French it makes you want to applaud.

Of course the New York Fed boss at the time was Tim Geithner. And this must really be the last straw for him. But then we’ve likely entered a new phase anyway for the Obama government, one in which heads will roll and bodies thrown overboard to satisfy the hungry pack of wolves that’s chasing the sledge. For all we know, by revealing this tidbit, Ben Bernanke threw out Geithner before they could get to him (he has a hearing scheduled on Friday). And also for all we know, Geithner may have been well aware of what was going on, and seen a great opening to get his Wall Street friends a great deal.

It's all water under the bridge now. Pretty soon, Obama can't afford to be seen with Tim in public anymore.

Ilargi: Gracious Montréal songstress Kate McGarrigle died Monday, January 18, of cancer.

The First 364 Days 23 Hours

AIG 100-Cents Fed Deal Driven by France Belied by French Banks
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York paid French banks 100 cents on the dollar to settle trades with American International Group Inc. in November 2008, the same month an AIG competitor negotiated payments of less than a third of that to retire similar bets. The decision to pay in full came after France’s bank regulator insisted that Societe Generale SA and Credit Agricole SA’s Calyon unit would be violating French law if they accepted less than they were owed, the New York Fed told a special inspector general. The Fed, which had rescued the insurer two months earlier after the collapse of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., paid face value to all 16 of AIG’s counterparties, including Goldman Sachs Group Inc., a move that may have cost U.S. taxpayers as much as $43.5 billion.

French law didn’t stop Societe Generale and BNP Paribas SA from taking $1 billion to settle $3.5 billion of trades the same month with New York-based bond insurer Ambac Financial Group Inc., according to three people familiar with the matter. Ambac’s ability to negotiate a discount while the central bank of the world’s biggest economy didn’t adds another question for lawmakers as they examine the most contentious transaction of the government’s bailout of the U.S. banking system.

"The Fed could have tried a little harder to get the French banks to take less than 100 cents on the dollar," said U.S. Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee, in an interview. "This creates the impression among the American people that the purpose was not to protect taxpayers or the economy but to protect the counterparty financial institutions."

Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, president of the New York Fed during the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression, will answer questions about the AIG payouts on Jan. 27 from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee’s invitation came after Bloomberg reported that e- mail exchanges between the New York Fed and AIG show that the regulator asked the insurer to withhold details of the payments.

A statement posted by the New York Fed on its Web site yesterday said that "it is not in fact precisely accurate that counterparties received 100 percent" payments. The regulator also said in the statement that "the counterparties received essentially par value," or the full amount owed. The banks were paid $61.9 billion for securities with face value of $62.1 billion, or 99.7 percent, according to the Web site. Reimbursing the banks was "absolutely" the right decision, Geithner said in an interview with CNBC on Jan. 14. "We did it in a way that I believe was not just least cost to the taxpayer, best deal for the taxpayer, but helped avoid much, much more damage than would have happened without that."

Geithner recused himself from AIG matters when he was designated for the Treasury post on Nov. 24, 2008, Meg Reilly, a Treasury spokeswoman, said in an e-mail. That was the same day an AIG lawyer told the New York Fed that the insurer’s executives wanted to publicly disclose details about retiring the swaps. The negotiations between the Fed and the banks over the AIG payouts took place on Nov. 6 and Nov. 7. The New York Fed used the French regulator’s opinion to help justify paying the full $62.1 billion that AIG could potentially owe counterparties on credit-default swaps it had sold, according to a Nov. 17, 2009, report by the special inspector general of the Treasury Department’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.

"We believe that it would not have been appropriate to use our supervisory authority on behalf of AIG to obtain concessions from domestic counterparties in purely commercial transactions in which some of the foreign counterparties would not grant, or were legally barred from granting, concessions," Scott G. Alvarez, general counsel of the Fed Board of Governors, and Thomas C. Baxter Jr., the New York Fed’s general counsel, wrote in a letter included in an appendix to the special inspector general’s report. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday in a letter to the Government Accountability Office that he would welcome a GAO review of the transactions. Lawmakers subpoenaed all documents related to the AIG payouts last week.

Bernanke, who said he wasn’t "directly involved" in the negotiations, said it would not have been appropriate for the Fed to use its power as a regulator to force U.S. banks to make concessions, especially because that would have "provided an advantage to foreign counterparties over domestic counterparties." "We believe the Federal Reserve acted appropriately in conducting the negotiations, and that the negotiating strategy, including the decision to treat all counterparties equally, was not flawed or unreasonably limited," Bernanke wrote Dec. 15 to Kentucky Republican Senator Jim Bunning.

AIG tried to persuade its counterparties to accept payments of 60 cents on the dollar before the New York Fed took over negotiations, according to people familiar with the matter. The chairman of the House Committee on Oversight, Democrat Edolphus Towns of New York, and the committee’s top Republican, Darrell E. Issa of California, have both called the full repayments a "backdoor bailout" of financial institutions. Geithner told TARP’s inspector general that the financial condition of the counterparties was not a relevant factor in the decision to pay full value, according to the report.

Paris-based Societe Generale, France’s second-biggest bank by market value, received $16.5 billion from AIG, the most of any counterparty. It was followed by Goldman Sachs, with $14 billion, Frankfurt-based Deutsche Bank AG, with $8.5 billion, and Merrill Lynch & Co., now part of Charlotte, North Carolina- based Bank of America Corp., with $6.2 billion. Calyon received $4.3 billion. Spokeswomen Stephanie Carson-Parker of Societe Generale, Christelle Maldague of BNP Paribas and Anne Robert of Calyon declined to comment. So did AIG spokesman Mark Herr, Ambac spokesman Peter Poillon and Corinne Dromer, a spokeswoman for French regulator Commission Bancaire.

The French law that the Commission Bancaire may have cited is called "abus de biens sociaux," or misuse of company assets, said David Chijner, a partner with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP in Paris who specializes in corporate restructuring and mergers. The law prohibits company executives from making decisions they know to be contrary to the interests of the company. Violators can be jailed for up to five years and fined as much as 375,000 euros ($545,000). "It could be considered an ‘abus de biens sociaux’ in extreme circumstances," Chijner said.

James D. Cox, a professor of corporate and securities law at Duke University School of Law in Durham, North Carolina, said it is "preposterous" that reaching a settlement for less than 100 cents "could be a criminal act in a developed Western country in the depths of a financial crisis." "Even if you concede the point, it was not a crime for Goldman Sachs to take less than 100 percent," Cox said. "Treating all the banks the same is a bunch of hooey."

New York Fed spokeswoman Deborah Kilroe declined to comment. William C. Dudley, who took over as president of the New York Fed after Geithner became Treasury secretary, told PBS last week that the Fed didn’t want to choose who would be hurt by an AIG bankruptcy. "When we made the decision to intervene to prevent the bankruptcy, we were protecting everybody," Dudley said. UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank by revenue, told the New York Fed that it would accept a 2 percent discount if other banks would, according to the special inspector general’s report. Kelly Smith, a spokeswoman for UBS in New York, declined to comment.

At a Jan. 13 hearing of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, formed by Congress to report on the causes of the credit crisis and the recession that followed, Goldman Sachs Chief Executive Officer Lloyd C. Blankfein said New York Fed negotiators asked a Goldman employee if the investment bank would accept less than face value for AIG debts. The employee replied that it was a decision he couldn’t make at his level, Blankfein said. The Goldman employee wasn’t contacted again, Blankfein said, and neither was he. "It didn’t come up in any conversation that I can recall," Blankfein said. The French banks had a duty to "maximize recovery" of their investments, Chijner said. That may have meant accepting a discount, also known as a haircut, from Ambac and no less than face value from AIG, whose largest investor was the U.S. government.

"If Ambac had nobody’s backing and was in a near insolvency situation, then indeed the prudent French director would have a duty to try to maximize recovery," Chijner said. Even with government support, AIG had a greater chance of going under than Ambac did, according to credit-default swap pricing at the time. On Sept. 21, 2008, five days after the U.S. loaned AIG $85 billion and agreed to take a 79.9 percent stake in the insurer, then-Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson told the NBC-TV interview program "Meet the Press" that the action would "allow the government to liquidate this company." AIG had an implied 87 percent chance of missing debt payments on Nov. 7, 2008, the day the New York Fed negotiated the repayments, according to CMA DataVision, a London-based information provider. The chance of an Ambac default that day was an implied 77 percent.

Credit-default swaps pay the buyer of the insurance face value of a security if a borrower fails to make a payment. In exchange, the buyer hands over the security or the cash equivalent. AIG’s insurance contracts differed from Ambac’s because they required AIG to send collateral to counterparties when certain events, called triggers, occurred, said Jim Millstein, the Treasury Department’s chief restructuring officer. The agreements required the insurer to post collateral when the assets it guaranteed, such as home loans, declined in value or when AIG’s credit rating was downgraded, Millstein said. Ambac guaranteed assets without triggers, so no payments were required until the assets matured, he said.

"It was just AIG’s pure arrogance that led them to do this," Millstein said. "But they did it, and that was what the federal government inherited." Buying the assets underlying the credit-default swaps at face value and ripping up the guarantees to AIG’s counterparties stopped calls for collateral and staunched the bleeding from AIG’s balance sheet, Millstein said. It also may have prevented a run on AIG’s insurance business, he said. Maiden Lane III, an off-balance-sheet entity created by the Fed, purchased $27.1 billion of underlying securities from AIG’s counterparties, according to the inspector general’s report. That money, combined with $35 billion in collateral funded in part by the government’s original bailout, equaled the $62.1 billion value of the assets, the report said.

AIG and Ambac wrote insurance on mortgage-linked securities, and losses piled up when U.S. borrowers began to miss monthly payments at a faster pace at the beginning of 2007. Delinquencies of all home loans have doubled since then, to 9.6 percent of all homeowners in the third quarter of 2009 from 4.8 percent in the first quarter of 2007, according to the Washington-based Mortgage Bankers Association. Neither Ambac nor AIG has ever filed for bankruptcy. Neither Societe Generale nor BNP Paribas has been prosecuted for accepting a discounted payment from Ambac.

Bernanke Seeks 'Full Review' by Government Accountability Office of Fed’s AIG Aid
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke invited congressional auditors to conduct a "full review" of the central bank’s aid to American International Group Inc. after lawmakers accused the Fed of trying to conceal information about the bailout. "The Federal Reserve would welcome a full review by GAO of all aspects of our involvement in the extension of credit to AIG," Bernanke said today in a letter to Gene Dodaro, acting head of the Government Accountability Office, that was released by the Fed.

Bernanke’s letter coincides with efforts by lawmakers to obtain more details on the Fed’s oversight of AIG after e-mails released this month showed that the New York Fed asked the company to withhold information from the public about payments to banks. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last week subpoenaed all documents related to the New York Fed decision to fully reimburse banks that bought protection from AIG and efforts to persuade AIG to keep information about the payments from the public.

The New York Fed said today it delivered 250,000 pages of documents to the House panel. The materials show that the New York Fed’s actions "assisted AIG in ensuring the accuracy of its disclosures and protected important U.S. taxpayer interests," the bank said. The New York Fed reiterated that its former president and now-Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner had no role or knowledge of the disclosure matters. Treasury Secretary Geithner, who was head of the New York Fed when AIG was rescued in 2008, agreed to testify Jan. 27 before the House oversight panel on the bailout. Geithner said last week on CNBC that he wasn’t involved in the decision to limit disclosures.

Chuck Young, a spokesman for the GAO in Washington, said the Fed’s request "will have to be reviewed in the context of our future work priorities, given our existing statutory requirements related to federal efforts to stabilize the financial system, as well as requests from congressional committees." Bernanke, 56, who may face a Senate confirmation vote this week for a second four-year term, said in today’s letter that a GAO audit would "afford the public the most complete possible understanding of our decisions and actions in this matter," and "provide a comprehensive response to questions that have been raised by members of Congress." Bernanke said the Fed will make all necessary records and personnel available to the GAO, which gained authority to audit the AIG rescue in a law that went into force in May.

"It’s just Bernanke’s way of saying, ‘Look, we did the things that were correct and we aren’t hiding anything, and if you’d like to audit us, that’s fine with me,’" said Douglas Lee, who runs Economics from Washington, a consulting firm in Potomac, Maryland, and is a former congressional economist. The bailout, which began with an $85 billion Fed loan in exchange for a stake of almost 80 percent in the New York-based insurer, was revised three times to prop up AIG. The rescue now includes a $60 billion Fed credit line, an investment of as much as $69.8 billion from the Treasury and up to $52.5 billion to buy mortgage-linked assets owned or backed by the insurer.

The assistance included "significant conditions and protections for the taxpayers," Bernanke wrote in the letter. "The Federal Reserve and Treasury Department required new management of AIG; we obtained for the U.S. Government a significant stock interest in AIG that materially diluted existing shareholders of AIG; and we required AIG to immediately begin to wind down its systemically risky operations." Representative Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House oversight panel, and other lawmakers have called federal aid a "backdoor bailout" because of payments to Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and other banks.

In a Bloomberg Television interview today, Issa said Bernanke "seems unapologetic and unrepentant when it comes to the fact that he spent $62 billion of your tax dollars when $15 billion would have probably bought the paper on the street," referring to the payouts. "He doesn’t want light shed by Congress. He only wants the GAO."

Taxing Wall Street Down to Size
by David Stockman

While supply-side catechism insists that lower taxes are a growth tonic, the theory also argues that if you want less of something, tax it more. The economy desperately needs less of our bloated, unproductive and increasingly parasitic banking system. In this respect, the White House appears to have gone over to the supply side with its proposed tax on big banks, as it scores populist points against the banksters, too.

Not surprisingly, the bankers are already whining, even though the tax would amount to a financial pinprick — a levy of only 0.15 percent on the debts (other than deposits) of the big financial conglomerates. Their objections are evidence that the administration is on the right track. Make no mistake. The banking system has become an agent of destruction for the gross domestic product and of impoverishment for the middle class.

To be sure, it was lured into these unsavory missions by a truly insane monetary policy under which, most recently, the Federal Reserve purchased $1.5 trillion of longer-dated Treasury bonds and housing agency securities in less than a year. It was an unprecedented exercise in market-rigging with printing-press money, and it gave a sharp boost to the price of bonds and other securities held by banks, permitting them to book huge revenues from trading and bookkeeping gains.

Meanwhile, by fixing short-term interest rates at near zero, the Fed planted its heavy boot squarely in the face of depositors, as it shrank the banks’ cost of production — their interest expense on depositor funds — to the vanishing point. The resulting ultrasteep yield curve for banks is heralded, by a certain breed of Wall Street tout, as a financial miracle cure. Soon, it is claimed, a prodigious upwelling of profitability will repair bank balance sheets and bury toxic waste from the last bubble’s collapse. But will it?

In supplying the banks with free deposit money (effectively, zero-interest loans), the savers of America are taking a $250 billion annual haircut in lost interest income. And the banks, after reaping this ill-deserved windfall, are pleased to pronounce themselves solvent, ignoring the bad loans still on their books. This kind of Robin Hood redistribution in reverse is not sustainable. It requires permanently flooding world markets with cheap dollars — a recipe for the next bubble and financial crisis.

Moreover, rescuing the banks yet again, this time with a steeply sloped yield curve (that is, cheap short-term money and more expensive long-term rates), is not even a proper monetary policy action. It is a vast and capricious reallocation of national income, which would be hooted down in the halls of Congress, were it properly brought to a vote.

National economic policy has come to this absurd pass because for decades the Fed has juiced the banking system with excessive reserves. With this monetary fuel, the banks manufactured, aggressively at first and then recklessly, a tide of new loans and deposits. When Wall Street’s "heart attack" struck in September 2008, bank liabilities had reached 100 percent of gross domestic product — double the ratio of a few decades earlier. This was a measurement of the perilous extent to which bad investments, financed by debt, had come to distort the warp and woof of the economy.

Behind the worthless loans stands a vast assemblage of redundant housing units, shopping malls, office buildings, warehouses, tanning salons and fast food restaurants. These superfluous fixed assets had, over the past decade, given rise to a hothouse economy of jobs that have now vanished. Obviously, the legions of brokers, developers, appraisers, contractors, tradesmen and decorators who created the bad investments are long gone. But now the waitresses, yoga instructors, gardeners, repairmen, sales clerks, inventory managers, office workers and lift-truck drivers once thought needed to work at these places are disappearing into the unemployment statistics, as well.

The baleful reality is that the big banks, the freakish offspring of the Fed’s easy money, are dangerous institutions, deeply embedded in a bull market culture of entitlement and greed. This is why the Obama tax is welcome: its underlying policy message is that big banking must get smaller because it does too little that is useful, productive or efficient. To argue, as some conservatives surely will, that a policy-directed shrinking of big banking is an inappropriate interference in the marketplace is to miss a crucial point: the big Wall Street banks are wards of the state, not private enterprises. During recent quarters, for instance, the preponderant share of Goldman Sachs’ revenues came from trading in bonds, currencies and commodities.

But these profits were not evidence of Mr. Market doing God’s work, greasing the wheels of commerce and trade by facilitating productive financial transactions. In fact, they represented the fruits of hyperactive gambling in the Fed’s monetary casino — a place where the inside players obtain their chips at no cost from the Fed-controlled money markets, and are warned well in advance, by obscure wording changes in the Fed’s policy statements, about any pending shift in the gambling odds.

To be sure, the most direct way to cure the banking system’s ills would be to return to a rational monetary policy based on sensible interest rates, an end to frantic monetization of federal debt and a stable exchange value for the dollar. But Ben Bernanke, the Fed chairman, and his posse are not likely to go there, believing as they do that central banking is about micromanaging aggregate demand — asset bubbles and a flagging dollar be damned. Still, there can be no doubt that taxing big bank liabilities will cause there to be less of them. And that’s a start.

David Stockman, a director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Ronald Reagan, is working on a book about the financial crisis.

"We're a Mess": What the Backlash Over Bonuses and AIG's Bailout Says About America

With big banks revealing massive 2009 bonuses, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke now supporting a "full review" of AIG's bailout, and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner due to testify on the same, this is shaping up to be a watershed month in the bailout backlash department. "This whole situation is a mess for Bernanke, it's a mess for the banks ultimately and I'm not sure how we get out of it because the public wants blood," says Christopher Whalen, managing director at Institutional Risk Analytics, and a longtime and critic of both Bernanke and Geithner.

Whether either regulator loses his job over this remains to be seen but Whalen says politicians are slowing awakening to the public's outrage, with election setbacks proving a big wake-up call to the Democrats. "They're sniffing the wind and realizing they weren't gauging the electorate correctly, maybe they weren't in harmony with what the voters were thinking on these issues, even though nobody [in Congress] understands AIG," he says.

If AIG is the most galling symbol of the government's inept response to the financial crisis, Goldman Sachs is viewed as the most cunning beneficiary. Later this week, Goldman is expected to report robust fourth-quarter results and a bonus pool approaching $20 billion. (On Tuesday, Reuters reported Goldman delayed telling its U.K. employees details about their bonuses, amid reports the Financial Services Authority (Britain's SEC) has raised concerns about the plans.)

"Despite the money, despite the supposed political savvy of Goldman, they still don't know how to manage their public image," Whalen says. A former Congressional staffer, Whalen laments the politicizing of these events because the theatrics mask the bigger issue: "We can't control ourselves in terms of the fiscal functions of our government," he says. "We're a mess. We can't even have a process in place that is transparent and easy for people to understand. That's why we have a problem - this was all done in the dead of night."

A bank levy will not stop the doomsday cycle
by Peter Boone and Simon Johnson

The last few weeks of political developments around the American-European financial system make us feel like we are back in the USSR. During the final years of communism’s decline, Soviet bureaucrats argued for futile tweaks to laws that would crack down on speculators and close "loopholes" – all in the vain hope they could keep the unproductive system of incentives intact. The US, UK and key European countries are now making the same errors. Rather than recognising the dangerous systemic failures in our financial system, their leaders are proposing bandages that can – at best – only postpone another, possibly much larger, meltdown.

There is growing recognition that our financial system is running a doomsday cycle. Whenever it fails, we rely on lax money and fiscal policies to bail it out. This response teaches the financial sector a simple lesson: take large gambles to get paid handsomely, and don’t worry about the costs – they will be paid by taxpayers (through fiscal bail-outs), savers (through interest rates cut to zero), and many workers (through lost jobs). Our financial system is thus resurrected to gamble again – and to fail again. Such cycles have been manifest at least since the 1970s and they are getting larger. This danger has even been recognised at the Bank of England, where Andrew Haldane, responsible for financial stability, recently published an eloquent critique of what he calls our "doom loop".

Not surprisingly, Ben Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve, does not agree that blame rests squarely with our monetary authorities. In a speech in Atlanta, he (incredibly) argued that extremely low interest rates on his watch – and decades of similar bail-outs of the financial sector – did not play a role in the recent collapse. Like an old-time Soviet bureaucrat, he put the blame on bad regulators and argued that more complex rules are needed to make regulation "better and smarter".

When the Soviet Union fell apart, there were two competing views on what needed to be done: total change or tinkering. The establishment wanted tinkering – it felt much less threatening. This elite believed that if they could just get the rules right, the system would work well. But they completely missed the larger point – egregious loopholes in the rules were inherent to the system failing. In the Soviet Union then and in the US today, powerful lobbies profit from avoiding the rules, and a complex regulatory system actually serves them well as top lawyers and accountants seek out new flaws, or ensure they are represented in reform discussions. It is no surprise that Basel bank capital rules are discredited – the proposed Basel revision, with complex additional liquidity and risk-measuring systems, will fail just as surely.

This week, the US Treasury pulled its latest rabbit out of the hat: a tax on the liabilities of large banks. The Obama administration argues that, by penalising large institutions with such taxes, we can limit their future risk-taking. This logic is deeply flawed. Why would higher funding costs mean you gamble less? If you know Tim Geithner is waiting to bail you out, you may gamble more heavily in order to pay the tax. The UK "reforms" look equally unpromising. In this regard, America’s top bankers appear much more honest, and focused on clear goals, than our policymakers. In his testimony to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission last week, Jamie Dimon, head of JPMorgan Chase, argued that regulatory failure was a major reason for our latest financial collapse. He did not try to argue that we could make it work – he just made the obvious point that, if there is potential failure to exploit, banks will naturally press any advantage to make profits.

For our top bankers, the fact that the system will only change marginally is fine. Phil Angelides, chair of the Commission, nailed Lloyd Blankfein, head of Goldman Sachs, with a metaphor for the age: Wall Street is in effect selling cars with faulty brakes, and then taking out insurance on the buyers. Blankfein naturally retorted: "I do not think the behaviour is improper." Here we go again. To end the doomsday cycle and prevent even greater damage to the real economy, we need dramatic reforms.

First, we must sharply raise capital requirements at leveraged institutions, so shareholders rather than regulators play the leading role in making sure their money is used sensibly. This means tripling capital requirements so banks hold at least 20-25 per cent of assets in core capital.

Second, we need to end the political need to bail out every institution that fails. This can be helped by putting strict limits on the size of institutions, and forcing our largest banks, including the likes of Goldman Sachs and Barclays, to become much smaller. When the Soviet Union disintegrated, it took tough leaders and clear thinkers, such as Boris Yeltsin and Yegor Gaidar, to pick up the pieces and push for reform. It would have been easier and less messy if genuine reform had started before the collapse.

In the past few months it has become clear the US and UK don’t have sufficiently strong political leaders. There are good tough people around: Paul Volcker stands out in the US, as so does Thomas Hoenig, head of the Kansas City Fed, and Mr Angelides. In the UK, Lord Turner, Mr Haldane, and even Mervyn King are showing at least intellectual inclination towards more serious reform. Let’s bring more such clear thinking into top policy circles now, rather than wait for another collapse.

A "Bloodbath" By Any Other Name: More Pain Ahead for (Big) Banks, Whalen Says

A big week of bank earnings accelerates midweek with results expected from Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, US Bancorp and Wells Fargo on Wednesday, followed by Goldman Sachs, American Express and Capital One Financial on Thursday. So what should investors expect? More revenue disappointments, such as those already posted by JP Morgan and Citigroup, according to Chris Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics.

"Right now the total egg - credit -- is shrinking [by 5-7% per year]," Whalen says. "The bank side is not a source of growth. Can you pull it out on the capital market side? Maybe, but I'm not sure where that comes from" given many of the big banks have loaded up on low-risk securities in the aftermath of 2008's bloodbath.

Speaking of "bloodbaths", I asked Whalen if he's sticking by the gruesome forecast he made here back in October. The answer is "yes", albeit with some caveats. "Loss rates for the industry will be very high," Whalen says, forecasting record charge-off rates, higher loan loss reserves and a lot of "minus signs" for banks' bottom lines. Still, the Fed's program of buying toxic securities means "everyone gets a pass on mark-to-market," with the biggest banks getting a disproportionate benefit, he says.

10 reasons Obama is failing 95 million investors
by Paul B. Farrell

An open letter to President Obama: You are failing us. Many now question voting for you.

A year ago, millions of Americans -- investors, taxpayers, consumers, voters -- came together uplifted by the "audacity of hope," inspired by a vision of "change we can believe in," by "bold and specific ideas about how to fix our ailing economy and strengthen the middle class, make health care affordable for all, achieve energy independence, and keep America safe in a dangerous world." "Yes, we can" was the rallying cheer. You were the game-changer after the Bush-Cheney fiasco. What happened? Today we just don't see, or expect to see, any real change we can believe in. America is more polarized than under Bush's GOP, dysfunctional as both parties tragically undermine our great nation.

There are many reasons future historians may rate your presidency average, or even a failure, at least based on the gap between the promise a year ago and the reality today, certainly for investors. But we also know that the future, seen through a broader historical lens, will reveal a natural cycle with you cast in the predictable final scene of a Shakespearean-style plot driven by fate, the same dramatic destiny of all great nations and civilizations. We know a dark conspiracy made up of Wall Street, corporate chief executives and the Forbes 400 controls Washington, limiting and manipulating you. So we know it's not all your fault -- for you are playing your role well in America's epic historical drama.

As Shakespeare put it: "All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players. They have their exits and their entrances." As this past year unfolded it became painfully obvious you are indeed playing a role in a historic drama, along with other leaders in a staged, life-cycle, endgame conspiracy that includes Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush, Fed Chairmen Greenspan and Bernanke, and Wall Street's bosses --Paulson and your fat-cat banker buddies. The final scene of this Shakespearean drama is playing out this very moment, with 10 improvisational plot points driving your character's role.

1. Failing to grasp John Adams' warning: All democracies commit suicide
"Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." John Adams, a great American president, made that famous prediction at the beginning of our great nation. And yet, paradoxically, when a democracy commits suicide, it also kills off the very capitalism that made it powerful, the economic system Adam Smith identified the same year our Declaration of Independence was signed. Today we are neither independent nor free; King George has been replaced by a far more powerful moneyed conspiracy that you sold out to last year.

2. Failing to sense the psychological impact of being an aging democracy
Our time is up, says Scottish historian Alexander Tytler, recently quoted by economist Marc Faber: "The average life span of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years." Then "once a society becomes successful it becomes arrogant, righteous, overconfident, corrupt, and decadent ... overspends ... costly wars ... wealth inequity and social tensions increase; and society enters a secular decline." We're on suicide watch, acting out the final scenes President Adams predicted for democracy, as Wall Street murders capitalism.

3. Failing to demand sacrifices, instead adding to Bush's massive war debt
Back in 2003, coincidental with the "greatest foreign policy blunder in American history," the Iraq war, Kevin Phillips, a political historian, published "Wealth and Democracy." Phillips warned: "Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out." Three trillion wasted, says economist Joseph Stiglitz. And now, Mr. President, you're playing your role, along with Bush, Paulson, Bernanke and Congress, piling on an unsustainable $23.7 trillion in what is the greatest domestic blunder in American history.

4. Failing to lead with 'once-in-a-lifetime' systemic financial reforms
Former Fed vice-chair Alan Blinder recently wrote in The Journal: "When economists first heard Gekko's now-famous dictum, 'Greed is good,' they thought it a crude expression of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' -- which is one of history's great ideas. But in Smith's vision, greed is socially beneficial only when properly harnessed and channeled," with incentives for risk-taking, honest competition, regulatory safeguards, and regulators who will actually enforce the rules. But "when these conditions fail to hold, greed is not good." Blinder fears "that a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to build a sturdier and safer financial system is slipping away." No consumer protection, no mortgage clawbacks, no derivatives regulations, nothing. You are setting the stage for another, bigger meltdown, the "Great Depression 2," the last tragic act in this drama, dead ahead.

5. Failing to pick a cast of characters that could have changed history
Recently, John Kay of the Financial Times said: "Our banks are beyond the control of mere mortals." But it's not just banks: Our American government and economy is "beyond the control of mere mortals." Each president picks his own actors to play out this grand epic historical drama: 21 cabinet officers and 6,722 other senior bureaucrats.

Last year many voted for you fearing McCain might pick Phil Gramm as Treasury secretary. Unfortunately, Mr. President, your picks not only revived Reaganomics under the guise of Keynesian economics, you sidelined a real change-agent, Paul Volcker, and picked Paulson-clones like Geithner and Summers. But worse of all, you're reappointing Bernanke, a Greenspan clone, as Fed chairman, an economist who, as Taleb put it, "doesn't even know he doesn't understand how things work." And with that pick, you proved you also don't understand how things work. And yet forever true to the script, your decision fits perfectly in the final act captured by your predecessor, President Adams.

6. Failing to stand up to our 100 senatorial assassins and 261,000 lobbyists
Instead of leadership, you let Congress run the show, a strategy that may work in community organizing but in Washington reminds us of the old adage that "the inmates are running the prison." We now know why Adams used words like "murder" and "suicide" as the endgame in a democracy. Suicide was a theme in a third of Shakespeare's dramas: Romeo and Juliet, Brutus, Cassius, Othello, Lady Macbeth, Ophelia, Antony and Cleopatra. But Julius Caesar is the best comparison: Senators were Caesar's assassins -- a loyal friend even drew first blood. Today, any one of 100 self-interested senators can legally threaten to "assassinate" the entire nation. And you seem unwilling to stand up to their totally dysfunctional kamikaze mission.

7. Failing to act presidential, while fat-cat bankers hijack your presidency
Economist Peter Morici writes in the Baltimore Sun: "On banks, Obama talks tough, does little." Matt Taibbi is far more caustic in "Obama's Big Sellout," Mr. President: "A once-in-a-generation political talent" has "allowed his presidency to be hijacked. Instead of reining in Wall Street, Obama has allowed himself to be seduced by it ... pulled a bait-and-switch on us." And yet while it's so blatant and obvious, Wall Street gets away with it because your presidency has merged into a fat-cat bankers' conspiracy.

8. Failing to protect 95 million investors, letting Wall Street loot America
Wall Street bankers are stealing trillions: In "Not So Radical Reform," BusinessWeek says the "top five U.S. commercial banks ... were on track" earning at the rate of $70 billion "in 2009 trading unregulated derivative contracts." The Journal connects the dots: The same banks "allocated about $90 billion for overall compensation," with average bonuses of $500,000, ten times the income of most Americans. Yes, Wall Street looted that money from taxpayers as you turned a blind eye, Mr. President. One Journal commentator says "the government should make it clear that it will allow these institutions to fail." Except no one believes you have the guts or the will to do that, Mr. President. You are a Wall Street banker's dream. But you have failed America's 95 million investors and the consequences will be disastrous in the near future.

9. Failing to avoid the 'hubris virus' disease killing America's leaders
Before you took office Mr. President (and while Paulson was looting the American Treasury to save his old firm), Portfolio warned: For "every high flier who is chastened, another would-be mogul pops up elsewhere, convinced he's smart enough to game the system ... When things are very good, people take ridiculous risks, and then things come crashing down and the risk just moves somewhere else ... We don't know where it's going next, but someone will be making money somewhere." Why? Because "like a lethal virus, it seems, hubris never really disappears, it simply finds a new host." Yes, that deadly virus, that insatiable greed, mutates fast among Wall Street's fat-cat bankers.

10. Failing to see the ticking time-bomb scenario, the next big meltdown
"Bring Back Glass-Steagall," demands Journal columnist Thomas Frank, author of "The Wrecking Crew, How Republicans Rule." We hear the same message from Volcker, Stiglitz, McCain and others. But it'll merely delay the inevitable. The end-game is "never different," whether penned by Shakespeare, Adams, Tytler or Reinhart and Rogoff. As Frank says of the Financial Crisis Review Commission: Wall Street bankers will "skate away yet again by deflecting blame or mouthing pro forma mea culpas ... a sign that this inquiry, like so many other promises of reform since 9/15, is likely to leave Wall Street's status quo largely intact. That's the ticking-bomb scenario that truly imperils us all."

All the actors, cabinet officers, Fed chairmen, regulators, lobbyists are playing set roles in a well-known theater, waiting for their "entrance and exit" cues, "merely players" in a larger predestined historical drama re-written so many times, in the same repetitive plot. Like Shakespeare, economists Reinhart and Rogoff made clear in "This Time Is Different: Eight Centuries of Financial Folly," we are performing yet another revival of a 800-year-old history of self-destructive bull/bear, boom/bust cycles, with each ending in the same old Shakespearean-style final tragic act. For fact, you could break off Goldman's derivatives trading division from their commercial banking operations and I guarantee you their mega-bonus traders will find new ways to run Wall Street's gambling casino as fast as they were able to convert TARP billions into record bonuses in one year.

Epilogue: Midterms? Re-election? New GOP president 2012? All irrelevant!
The endgame script won't change. GOP-controlled House? 59 Dem senators? Romney? Palin as president? None of this matters, Mr. President. We're all "merely actors" in an epic drama well-known to Adams as well as Shakespeare. But don't get us wrong, we still do admire you. We know you'll honor your Nobel legacy, like Carter and Gore, after you leave office. But meanwhile, you are playing your role well in this tragic final act. Indeed, all of America's "merely actors" are right on cue with their "entrances and exits." Yes, even our 95 million investors are playing their designated roles too. In fact, it really doesn't matter much whether anyone goes to the voting booth, ever again, because the final scene has already been written ... by your predecessor, John Adams.

Greece CDS Hits Fresh Record; Funding Crisis Now Official
by Tyler Durden

The economic situation in Greece is getting worse by the day. Despite PM Papandreou's promises to the contrary, it is probably safe to say that the country is now in a full blown funding crisis; this is reflected in the country's fresh new record in its default risk as seen by credit traders.

At 346 bps, it is just a matter of time before all hedges cover positions and this number explodes. Now it is the Eurozone's turn to promise it will not expel Greece from the monetary union: we think the likelihood of this action is increasing proportional to the number of times this possibility is refuted.

The Greek tragedy deserves a global audience
by Martin Wolf

The Greek government has promised to slash its fiscal deficit from an estimated 12.7 per cent of gross domestic product last year to 3 per cent in 2012. Is it plausible that this will happen? Not very. But Greece is merely the canary in the fiscal coal mine. Other eurozone members are also under pressure to slash fiscal deficits. What might such pressure do to vulnerable members, to the eurozone and to the world economy? Having falsified its figures for years, violating the trust of its partners, Greece is in the doghouse. Yet, even if it bears much of the blame, the task it is undertaking is huge. In particular, unlike most countries with massive fiscal deficits – the UK, for example – Greece cannot offset the impact of fiscal tightening by loosening monetary policy or depreciating its currency.
Greece is a member of a currency union that has the tightest monetary policy of any large economy (see chart), as Paul de Grauwe of Leuven university pointed out in the FT this week. According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, eurozone real final domestic demand will stagnate in 2010. Germany’s is forecast to grow by 0.2 per cent. The euro has also strengthened by more in real terms since its launch in 1999 than any other leading currency. To add insult to injury, Greece and the other peripheral countries have lost competitiveness within the zone. On one measure, Greek unit labour costs rose by 23 per cent against Germany’s between early 2000 and the second quarter of 2009. This is in line with the experience of other peripheral members (see charts).
Finally, even if fiscal tightening were to lower spreads on Greek bonds over German bunds – a measure of Greece’s default risk – the benefit for the public finances and the economy would not be large. True, early this week, the Greek spread over bunds was as big as 2.74 percentage points. But spreads have only been wide for two years. The impact of lower public sector interest rates on rates paid by the private sector is also likely to be quite small. Given these tight constraints, a big structural fiscal tightening will generate a deep recession. That is sure to increase the cyclical deficit. Assume, cautiously, that for every percentage point of structural tightening there would be 0.2 points of offsetting fiscal deterioration. Then the structural tightening needed to reduce the actual deficit to 3 per cent of GDP would be close to 12 percentage points. The Greek government would find that, for every step it takes forward, it would slip a bit backwards. So far Greece has not suffered a significant recession. That seems sure to change. The government will soon be facing miserable public and private sectors, with no policy levers.

The problems of Greece are extreme, because it alone of the vulnerable eurozone member countries has both high fiscal deficits and high debt. Other countries with large fiscal deficits are Ireland (12.2 per cent of GDP in 2009) and Spain (9.6 per cent). But, while net public borrowing was 86 per cent of GDP at the end of 2009 in Greece, according to the OECD, in Ireland and Spain it was only 25 and 33 per cent, respectively. Meanwhile, Italy, with a net debt ratio of 97 per cent, had a deficit of "only" 5.5 per cent. Portugal is in the middle, with net debt of 56 per cent of GDP and a deficit of 6.7 per cent of GDP. Thus, the challenge for Greece is larger and more urgent than for the others. In an article in the FT last week, Desmond Lachman of the American Enterprise Institute concluded that Greece will be forced to leave the eurozone. Simon Tilford of the Centre for European Reform in London argued on these pages that it must be bailed out, instead. There are two other possibilities: Greece toughs it out; or Greece just defaults.

Which is most likely? I do not know. But default cannot be a solution. Greece would then be forced to close its deficit in the midst of a national economic debacle. Leaving the eurozone would be a political catastrophe. Either of these eventualities (let alone both together) would also create lethal contagion for vulnerable members. Suddenly, the unthinkable would be thinkable. The eurozone could then confront a wave of sovereign debt and financial sector crises that would make what happened in 2009 look like a party. At the same time, a bail-out by the eurozone as a whole would create a monstrous moral hazard for politicians. It would only be possible if the eurozone subsequently exercised a degree of direct control over the fiscal decisions of member states. It would, in short, be the fastest route to the political union that many initially believed was a necessary condition for success.
Given the horrendous difficulty of all alternatives, I am sure the effort will be made to tough it out for as long as possible. That will also be the case elsewhere. All will be forced to accept lengthy recessions. But in the absence of either strong demand elsewhere in the eurozone or a weaker exchange rate, both of which depend on decisions by the European Central Bank, the competitive disinflation route to prosperity seems highly likely to fail. Some countries may find themselves stuck in long-term stagnation. Meanwhile, the eurozone as a whole, having lost its erstwhile internal demand engines, must now hope for faster growth of net exports. So do countries hit by the financial shock, such as the UK and US. So, too, does recession-hit Japan. So, not least, does China. Either the rest of the world has a spending binge, or these countries – which make up 70 per cent of the world economy – are going to be disappointed.
Some, knowing of my opposition to UK membership of the eurozone, may suppose that I find some pleasure in these looming difficulties. On the contrary, I fear the dangerous consequences. But these are certainly the sorts of difficulties that have worried me. Most of the time having an independent currency is nothing but a nuisance. But every so often and quite unpredictably, countries desperately need a safety valve. As Prof de Grauwe reminds us, the 1930s were a time when such relief was needed. Our own era is posing what look like similar challenges. Stuff does, indeed, happen. Having willed the creation of the euro, its members must overcome the difficulties that arise when, as now, stuff happens.


China targets $1.1 trillion in new loan issuance in 2010
Chinese regulators expect the nation's banks to issue about 7.5 trillion yuan ($1.1 trillion) in new loans this year, reflecting efforts to rein in bank lending after nearly doubling lending levels last year. China Banking Regulatory Commission Chairman Liu Mingkang cited the figure during an investment forum Wednesday in Hong Kong, according to Dow Jones Newswires. The new lending target means that outstanding yuan loans will rise about 16% to 18% this year, Liu said.

Chinese banks extended 9.59 trillion yuan of new loans in 2009, about 95% more than the 4.9 trillion yuan lent in 2008, and equivalent to nearly a third of the nation's economic output. The torrid pace of lending has helped China avoid an economic recession, but analysts have questioned the side effects of the lending growth, including possible credit-quality problems and the potential creation of asset-price bubbles. Liu also reportedly said some Chinese banks have been asked by regulators to limit their lending after they failed to meet capital requirements and other benchmarks.

No new loans this month?
Some Chinese banks have been asked to stop granting new loans for the remainder of January, the report cited the state-run China Securities Journal as saying. The report said regulators have given verbal instructions on lending to the nation's top four banks and several medium-sized financial institutions. The clampdown could indicate that new loans so far this year have already exceeded 1 trillion yuan, the report said. However, a subsequent Dow Jones Newswires report cited Liu as saying the China Banking Regulatory Commission has made no such request.

Separately, Premier Wen Jiabao said Tuesday that China will maintain "reasonable and ample" credit growth, while monitoring data, remarks that were seen as striking a more cautious tone than statements in recent months calling for continuity and stability in the nation's macroeconomic policy.

JAL rescuers forced to write off contributions
Trading partners of Japan Airlines that helped provide Y152bn ($1.7bn) of desperately needed capital to the company in 2008 will be forced to write off their contributions after JAL filed for bankruptcy this week. The losses will come on top of those of JAL creditors that are being asked to forgive Y730bn ($8bn) of the airline’s Y2,322bn of gross debt. Several banks, including UBS, also participated in the 2008 capital injection, though they are more likely to have offloaded their exposure through securitisation or other means.

On Wednesday, Sojitz, a trading house that sells in-flight meals and other items to JAL, said it would write off Y15bn of preferred shares issued to it by JAL. Other participants in the February 2008 capital injection are expected to follow suit. The Japanese carrier raised money from 14 banks and companies to pay down debt and finance its struggling effort to restructure. The move was one of several ultimately fruitless attempts to rescue the airline with government and private cash over the last decade. JAL’s bankruptcy filing made it the biggest local corporate failure outside the financial industry. All equity in the company will be wiped out, though the airline will remain in business thanks to a Y900bn government lifeline. Sojitz’s write-off amounts to a little over 40 per cent of its projected Y35bn operating profit for the year to March 31. The company said it was still evaluating the impact of the charge on its forecasts.

Earlier Tokyu, a railway and property group that had been one of the airline’s biggest common-stock investors with a roughly 3 per cent stake, said it had sold its holding at a Y9bn loss. It is not uncommon for Japanese companies to turn to their customers and suppliers for aid when they fall on hard times. Five other trading houses – Mitsui, Mitsubishi, Itochu, Sumitomo and Marubeni – participated in the 2008 fundraising, alongside fuel suppliers and banks. Mitsui, the Mizuho banking group and the state-owned Development Bank of Japan are the largest holders of JAL preferred shares with Y20bn apiece. UBS was the only non-Japanese participant in the fundraising, signing up for Y10bn, although it is understood not to have suffered a material loss.

Standard & Poors said total JAL-related losses for Japanese banks could amount to a of 10 per cent of their net profits for the year. S&P and Moody’s left their ratings on affected banks and trading firms unchanged. JAL had also been a popular stock with retail investors, who hold about 60 per cent of the company. JAL’s common stock will be delisted from the Tokyo Stock Exchange on February 20, although it continued to trade in large volumes on Tuesday, closing down Y3 at Y2. Brokers attributed the remaining demand for the stock to day traders looking to exploit price volatility – even a Y1 move now means a huge shift in percentage terms – and short-sellers needing to buy back shares to close out their positions.

JAL Bankruptcy Could Be Lengthy
Japan Airlines Corp.'s stint under bankruptcy protection isn't likely to be short or simple. The carrier, known as JAL, faces massive liabilities and has a sprawling business that covers everything from jet-fuel procurement to aircraft leasing, both in Japan and overseas. The case could also raise challenging questions about whether bankruptcy protection will be recognized as it does business in other countries.

"One thing that can become a big future problem is whether the court protection will be valid outside Japan as an international bankruptcy case," said Hideyuki Kobayashi, an attorney at Blakemore & Mitsuki law office in Tokyo. Citing also Japanese law and the uncertainty surrounding its fortunes, he added, "We can expect at least three years for JAL's revival." JAL said Tuesday it expects its international operations to continue as normal, though some detail may need to be sorted out.

JAL will use the nation's Corporate Rehabilitation Act, which is based on U.S. bankruptcy law. Under the act, current management is often dismissed from the troubled company's board and the company works through its finances with the help of court-appointed administrators. The bankruptcy protection also prohibits execution of the rights in collateral in Japan, meaning JAL will be able to continue operating leased aircraft, for instance. Japan's bankruptcy protection law has undergone several revisions to date, aimed at making it easier to use and bringing it closer into line with Chapter 11.

Among the 134 companies that filed for bankruptcy protection under the act between January 2004 and June 2009, around 50% have already managed to revive themselves, and only 1.5% actually went bankrupt and were liquidated, according to Teikoku Databank. Those companies took an average of 1.7 years to exit the reorganization process, data from Teikoku Databank showed, compared with 12.1 years for companies entering bankruptcy protection 10 years ago.

As JAL Bankruptcy Nears, Investors Rethink 'Too Big to Fail'
Japan Airlines Corp.'s expected bankruptcy filing could wipe out shareholders, cause the value of its bonds to plummet, and alter global investor attitudes toward Japan. Until now, shareholders had believed that Japan had a governmental safety net and would prop up ailing companies indefinitely. Blue-chip companies such as JAL were thought to be "too big to fail." "If investors can no longer assume some form of government safety net when investing in Japan, then we have to assume that this would ultimately be reflected in significantly wider corporate spreads than have been the norm to date," said BNP Paribas chief credit analyst Mana Nakazora.

JAL is scheduled to file for bankruptcy following Tuesday's 3 p.m. Tokyo stock market close. Individual shareholders, who accounted for 60% of JAL's 2.73 billion outstanding common shares as of September, will be the hardest hit by the possible subsequent delisting of the airline's stock, which has plunged from a peak of 200 yen ($2.20) last January to a close of 5 yen on Monday. Hidetaka Miyai, 34 years old, works for a mobile-phone content provider and spent 500,000 yen to buy 1,000 shares at around 500 yen apiece several years ago. "My purpose to hold JAL shares was purely to get discount coupons," he said. Twice a year, the airline issues flight discount vouchers to shareholders, which make the stock attractive to individuals. "I just missed the timing to sell them," he said. "I didn't think JAL would be facing the risk of delisting because it's the national flag carrier, isn't it?"

Even as JAL nears a bankruptcy filing, it is at the center of a tug-of-war between airlines in the Oneworld alliance, to which it belongs, and the SkyTeam alliance led by Delta Air Lines Inc., which is trying to lure it away. Both U.S. carriers believe closer JAL ties will give them access to the carrier's routes in Asia, the world's fastest-growing air market, and are offering JAL financial incentives. A spokeswoman for Air France-KLM, a leading member of the Sky Team alliance, said the talks "are progressing well." JAL also is in talks with AMR Corp.'s American Airlines, the leader of the Oneworld alliance.

A delisting from the Tokyo Stock Exchange is the primary concern for the stock market when JAL files for protection from creditors, the Japanese equivalent of Chapter 11 protection, and its rehabilitation process kicks off under the state-backed Enterprise Turnaround Initiative Corp. of Japan. A key question is whether the rehabilitation plan includes a 100% capital reduction, which would make JAL shares worthless and cause the stock to be delisted. TSE rules stipulate that shares then immediately enter "delisting post", with physical delisting taking place one day after the corresponding day of the TSE's notice in the following month. A TSE delisting announcement made on Jan. 19, for example, would result in delisting on Feb. 20. Market players can still trade in the stock during this one-month period.

Some of JAL's institutional investors already have sold their stake. In November, major trading house Mitsui & Co. said it had sold all of its common shares, while Tokyu Corp., JAL's largest shareholder as of September, said last week that it had sold all of its stake. While many retail investors rushed to offload their shareholdings late last year, according to local brokerages handling their orders, JAL has recently found many new buyers trying to make quick profit, either on any daily price volatility prior to a bankruptcy protection filing, or on the slim chance that the stock remains listed. The company's shares have traded heavily all week, with about 550 million shares trading hands Friday. The stock set the TSE single-stock trading volume record Thursday, as more than one billion shares changed hands.

Taro Matsugasako, 29, who works for a trading company, spent 28,000 yen to buy 4,000 JAL shares for seven yen apiece on Wednesday through an online brokerage account he opened in late December. It was his first investment in any stock and he intends to hold onto the shares, in case JAL remains listed. "In December, I bought 30,000 yen worth of lottery tickets and lost all of it," he said. "I don't mind spending about the same amount on JAL, because I think the chance of winning is at least higher than lottery tickets."

Tomohiro Nakayama, a 26-year-old day trader, is waiting to see if JAL shares fall as low as one yen prior to possible delisting. "That's when I would place massive buy orders, hoping that other people would follow and the shares will be two yen by any chance," he said.. The corporate bond market also is preparing to see a major cut in the value of JAL's bonds. The debt is held by institutional investors, mainly pensions and regional banks. "It's hard to imagine that JAL bondholders will be protected, as the firm won't be able to find sources to pay for the bonds with a massive debt already on their shoulders, and because major banks are moving to give up their loans to the company," said Yasuhiro Matsumoto, a senior analyst at Shinsei Securities.

The bond market's biggest concern is how much of about 67.2 billion yen outstanding in JAL bonds will be saved. About 47 billion yen of those are conventional bonds, while bonds that can be converted into shares account for about 20.2 billion yen. Bond players are looking at prices, rather than yields, of JAL corporate bonds in the secondary market, because they are certain that they won't be able to earn coupon income from the bonds.

The key now is how much of JAL bonds will be protected. JAL bonds in recent sessions were being quoted at around 25 yen to 30 yen, compared with their 100-yen face value. That's down from around 50 yen at the end of September, when it asked the government for public funds to boost its capital base. However, Mr. Matsumoto thinks the value of JAL bonds could be cut to less than 20% of face value if JAL applies for court-led rehabilitation. Still, given the relatively small size of JAL bonds compared to other heavyweights, any direct impact in the overall credit market is likely to be limited even if its corporate bonds do default, analysts said.

U.S. Housing Aid Benefits Banks, Not Homeowners
Government support for the economy has helped banks make all manner of windfall profits. But have outsize returns in banks' mortgage operations deprived borrowers of lower mortgage rates? In 2009, there was a big jump in an industry margin used to gauge the profitability of banks' main mortgage business, selling home loans to government-supported Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In theory, if that margin had remained at narrower, historical levels, mortgage rates for borrowers could have been lower. That might have created sizable savings for homeowners over the life of their loans and breathed more life into the housing market.

Banks' mortgage profits have come amid extraordinary government support for the housing market. Since 2008, the Treasury has spent $112 billion to shore up Fannie and Freddie. Further government support has come from the Federal Reserve's $1 trillion-plus of purchases of mortgage-backed securities since the start of 2009. All this has helped mortgage rates fall. But could they have been lower still? Consider what happens when banks sell their loans to Fannie or Freddie. A bank might write a mortgage at 5.1% and sell it to Fannie, which guarantees the loan and sells it with other loans packaged as mortgage-backed securities, perhaps with a coupon of 4.35%. The difference of 0.75 of a percentage point is booked by the bank, which uses some of that revenue to cover costs in its mortgage business.

From 2000 through 2008, that margin averaged 0.73 of a percentage point, according to data from Barclays Capital. But in 2009, the average was a much wider 0.98 of a percentage point. Any additional margin likely boosted banks' bottom lines. And by a lot, potentially, given that $1.4 trillion of mortgages were written in the first three quarters of 2009, according to Inside Mortgage Finance. Indeed, Wells Fargo and Bank of America, which together account for 45% of the market, reported blowout mortgage earnings last year.

The cause of the wider margin: The Fed's buying helped pull down coupons on Fannie and Freddie securities by more than mortgage rates. If banks had cut mortgage rates in line with those coupons, homeowners would have benefited. Instead, the benefit appeared to have accrued to the banks. Banks say the higher margin only offset higher expenses. But basic costs, like the guarantee fee banks pay to Fannie or Freddie as well as loan-servicing costs—roughly 0.25 of a percentage point each—likely haven't gone up excessively.

Jay Brinkmann, of the Mortgage Bankers Association, says banks needed to recoup a drop in the value of servicing-related assets last year. Lenders also face hedging costs when selling mortgages into a forward market, he says. Of course, since mortgage rates have come down so much, some might say it is nitpicking to focus on potential extra gains for banks. But mortgage rates are still relatively high on an inflation-adjusted basis. And though mortgage origination picked up in 2009 on the lower rates, it fell well short of previous low-rate years.

So should the Treasury have leaned on banks to charge lower mortgage rates, given the government's desire to help homeowners? Sure, intervention would have risked making banks skittish, perhaps leading to less lending. But the main lenders have all strengthened their mortgage operations through big mergers, and the price at which they sold mortgages benefited a lot from the Fed's buying. As the government spends huge sums shoring up the housing market, it may want to look more closely at who is benefiting.

Loan Modifications Prop Up the Housing Market
President Barack Obama's plan to ease mortgage terms for millions of distressed homeowners, announced nearly a year ago, now is widely panned for having fallen short of its ambitious goals. But some analysts say the program is a success in one sense: By slowing the flow of foreclosed homes to the market, it has helped prop up housing prices, at least for now. The administration's Home Affordable Modification Program, or HAMP, and other state and federal efforts to avert foreclosures have helped "buy time" for the housing market, preventing steeper home-price declines, said Ajay Rajadhyaksha, a managing director at Barclays Capital in New York.

The official goal of HAMP is to reduce monthly loan payments for distressed borrowers so they can afford to stay in their homes. But housing analysts at UBS Securities in New York, in a report last week, described HAMP as "a vehicle to delay the timing of new foreclosures hitting the market." Most analysts assume that a large share of the people who get modifications will default again within a year or two. Thus, some critics say the government and banks are merely "kicking the can down the road" on foreclosures that will hit the market eventually. The unresolved question is whether the housing market will be better able to absorb foreclosed homes in a year or two. That depends on whether the economy and job growth recover.

Treasury officials argue that the loan-mod program is working out well in terms of keeping many people in their homes, but they also acknowledge the broader effect on home prices: "I think it has had quite a strong stabilizing influence" on the housing market, Treasury Assistant Secretary Michael Barr said in a briefing Friday. In late 2008, banks dumped many of their foreclosed homes on the market, pushing prices down sharply in some areas. Around that time, though, banks began acquiring fewer homes through foreclosure. That was partly because of various moratoriums on foreclosures at the state and federal level, followed by HAMP.

Because of HAMP, banks feel heavy political pressure to carefully screen borrowers to see which ones might qualify for loan modifications before proceeding with foreclosures. That has extended the time it takes to decide whether to force through a foreclosure, creating a huge backlog of unresolved cases. As a result, there are fewer foreclosed homes on the market. The number of such homes available for sale dropped to 637,000 in November 2009 from 845,000 a year earlier, Barclays Capital estimated. Barclays expects the number to start rising again as people who don't qualify for a loan modification or don't want one lose their homes, and peak at 747,000 in April before declining gradually.

As recently as September, however, Barclays expected a peak of nearly 1.2 million foreclosed homes for sale in mid-2010. "Our projected peak keeps getting lower, the longer banks delay foreclosure sales," spreading the pain over a longer period, says Glenn Boyd, a senior researcher at Barclays. That has implications for pricing. The S&P/Case-Shiller 20-city home price index is down 29% from its peak in 2006 but has leveled off in recent months as fewer foreclosures have hit the market. As of Sept. 30, about 7.5 million households were behind on their mortgages or in the foreclosure process, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association, a trade group. It isn't clear how many of those homeowners can ultimately be rescued. HAMP so far has resulted in about 900,000 loan modifications, most of which are still in a trial period.

Louis Amaya, chief operating officer of National Asset Direct Inc., a New York-based asset manager whose affiliates purchase and service troubled mortgage loans, said the administration has used HAMP to shame lenders into offering lots of loan modifications but that a large share of those aren't sustainable. "The reality is that most people aren't going to qualify for a loan mod" that makes economic sense for both the borrower and lender, Mr. Amaya said. Those who can't afford their homes should be allowed to exit with dignity, such as through a short sale, in which the house is sold for less than the loan balance, he said. Instead, HAMP is "dragging out" the foreclosure process, Mr. Amaya said, and "we need to let the market correct itself." Until the huge backlog of loans headed for foreclosure is cleared, he said, the housing market can't recover.

Souring Mortgages, Weak Market Force FHA to Walk a Tightrope
David Stevens bought his first home almost 25 years ago, paying just 3% down with a loan backed by the Federal Housing Administration. "I had no money in the bank," he says. "If it weren't for the FHA, I wouldn't have gotten that home." Now, as FHA commissioner, Mr. Stevens has to decide how many others to let through that door. Souring FHA-insured mortgages are threatening the agency's finances. Congress is pressuring him to tighten the easy-money standards that once helped people like him, and he is expected to announce revisions as early as this week.
But raising the credit bar could have a dangerous side effect. In many of the nation's hardest-hit housing markets, the FHA backs around half of all new home loans. If the agency pulls back too quickly, the nascent housing recovery could fizzle, endangering the economy. The dilemma puts the 52-year-old former mortgage banker squarely in the middle of the debate over how much the government should do to prop up the housing market, and how much risk taxpayers should take on to do it. "How big a role do we need to play to keep the housing system functioning?" says Mr. Stevens, referring to the FHA. "Overcorrecting in either direction would be a terrible thing to do right now."

Mr. Stevens is finalizing possible revisions to credit standards. Options include raising the minimum down payment, establishing a minimum credit score, increasing the amount that borrowers have to pay for mortgage insurance, and reducing the amount of money sellers can kick in for closing costs. The FHA, created in 1934 to heal the U.S. housing market during the Great Depression, traditionally has helped first-time home buyers and underserved segments of the market. It doesn't lend money to home buyers, but insures lenders against default on loans that meet FHA criteria, collecting fees for that backing. For decades, thanks to a stable housing market, it turned a profit for taxpayers.

When the housing market was booming, subprime lenders drew away many of the borrowers who traditionally used FHA-backed loans by offering even more favorable terms. Unlike the FHA, subprime lenders didn't require borrowers to document their incomes. The FHA saw its share of the mortgage market fall to 2% in 2006. But when the subprime market collapsed, mortgage brokers began steering borrowers into FHA-backed loans. Politicians and policy makers encouraged the FHA to refinance at-risk borrowers into fixed-rate loans. Suddenly, the FHA had an enormous chunk of the market. Average credit scores of FHA borrowers dropped sharply at first. In last year's third quarter, the FHA insured 25% of mortgages, according to Inside Mortgage Finance, a trade publication.

"We should not play this large a role," Mr. Stevens says. "It's not healthy for the mortgage-finance system, it's not healthy for the economy, and it's certainly not sustainable for the long term." The FHA, which is part of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, isn't as nimble as private mortgage insurers. It must get approval from Congress for some major decisions. "They don't have the horsepower that they should, especially given the size of their operations," says Ann Schnare, a mortgage-industry consultant.

In testimony before Congress last month, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan acknowledged that the FHA "we inherited" was "not properly managing or monitoring its risk. Credit and risk controls were antiquated. Enforcement was weak. And our personnel resources and IT systems were inadequate." Mr. Stevens knows the industry well. He is the first FHA commissioner in nearly two decades to bring extensive private-sector experience to the job. During the 1980s, he was a top salesman of complex adjustable-rate mortgages for World Savings Bank, a California thrift. He went on to hold senior jobs at housing-finance giant Freddie Mac and at Wells Fargo & Co.

In his off time, he plays guitar, rides his BMW motorcycle and skis the backcountry. On the job, he gets his way through sheer "force of personality," says Eugene McQuade, once Mr. Stevens's boss when they worked at Freddie and now chief executive of Citigroup Inc.'s Citibank unit. When Mr. Stevens arrived in July 2009, the FHA didn't have anyone in charge of monitoring risk, including whether certain loan products or lenders were exposing the agency to excessive losses.

In his second week on the job, Mr. Stevens suspended the FHA license for Taylor, Bean & Whitaker Mortgage Corp., one of the nation's top lenders, amid concerns that the company was originating too many bad loans. Taylor Bean closed its doors the next day. In November, he hired the agency's first chief risk officer and five Ph.D. economists to help evaluate risk. That same month, FHA cut off Lend America, another major lender, which also closed.

But there are still signs of trouble. At about 30 FHA-approved lenders with at least 1,000 loan originations, more than 12% of loans are in default two years after origination, nearly double the national average at the end of November. Last Tuesday, HUD's inspector general served subpoenas on 15 of those lenders as part of an examination of the practices of lenders with high default rates. The percentage of FHA-backed loans that defaulted after borrowers made just one payment—typically an indication of poor underwriting or fraud—has started to fall, but not as fast as needed to avoid future loan losses. FHA-insured mortgages made in 2007 and 2008 are largely responsible for the agency's precarious position, with default rates approaching 24%. FHA officials concede that the agency offers today's easiest underwriting standards.

Mr. Stevens, nevertheless, lashes out at critics who say the FHA is repeating the mistakes of subprime lenders. At a conference in November, Robert Toll, chief executive of luxury-home builder Toll Brothers Inc., referred to the FHA as "the new subprime" and "a definite train wreck" that will soon need a bailout, according to a transcript of his remarks. Mr. Stevens, in an interview, called the comparison "ludicrous," and said Mr. Toll has "no clue" about the agency's finances.

The agency is required by Congress to hold enough capital in reserve to cover 30 years of projected losses. An independent audit said reserves at the end of September exceeded projected losses by just $3.6 billion, about 0.5% of the $685 billion in loans outstanding, down from 3% a year earlier. Congress requires the agency to maintain a 2% capital-reserve ratio. FHA officials say they have enough cash to cover the current level of losses, and that the agency risks running out of money only if home prices take another big dive. "We've learned from recent history that the market is fragile, and we have to plan for the unexpected," Mr. Donovan, the HUD secretary, said last month.

But some analysts say the agency's assumptions about home prices and foreclosures are too optimistic. "FHA is, at best, running on empty, and probably is facing a negative capital situation," Ms. Schnare, the industry consultant, told a congressional panel last month. If the agency were to run short of cash to cover projected losses, it likely would have to ask Congress for money for the first time ever. The bad-loan problem stems, in part, from controversial programs that allowed home builders and other sellers to fund down payments for home buyers through nonprofit groups. After a lengthy effort, the FHA prevailed on Congress to shut the programs down in October 2008, but the damage already was done. The FHA's independent audit concluded that were it not for such programs, the agency's capital-reserve ratio would have stayed above the 2% mandated by law.

In another troubling practice, by late 2007, institutional investors were identifying at-risk mortgages in their portfolios and refinancing the borrowers into FHA-backed loans, thereby offloading their risk onto the agency. "It was an unintentional bailout of financial institutions," says David Lykken, a partner at Mortgage Banking Solutions, an Austin, Texas, consulting firm. One of the raft of measures Mr. Stevens is considering to protect and replenish the agency's reserves is raising the minimum down payment. The current minimum of 3.5% is far lower than what private lenders offer, making FHA-backed loans one of the last low-down-payment options left. Last year, through August, nearly seven in eight new FHA-backed loans carried down payments of less than 5%.

Home builders are worried. "It would be a game changer for the industry" if down payments were raised, says Eric Lipar, chief executive of LGI Homes, a Texas-based builder of entry-level homes. Not everyone believes that such low down payments are good. In markets where home values are still falling, buyers who put little money down could see their equity wiped out quickly. The FHA is "just manufacturing more upside-down homeowners by the truckload in Arizona, California, and Nevada," says Brett Barry, a Phoenix real-estate agent who specializes in selling foreclosed homes. If the agency were to raise down payments sharply in those markets, price declines would become a "self-fulfilling prophecy," says Mr. Stevens. "If you stop lending, you're going to perpetuate the declines."

Mr. Stevens says first-time buyers are key to clearing inventory in markets such as Las Vegas. James Smith, a 42-year-old air-conditioning repairman, might not have been able to buy a $188,000 home out of foreclosure recently in Henderson, Nev., were it not for the low FHA down payments. To make the 3.5% payment, he used around $4,300 of his own money and borrowed the rest from this father-in-law. "It was actually a great thing," he says. He repaid his father-in-law after receiving an $8,000 tax credit for first-time home buyers. Mr. Smith, who earns around $50,000 annually, makes monthly payments of $1,466. Mr. Stevens says he expects to get heat from industry and consumer groups no matter what he decides to do to tighten credit standards.

Even as the FHA considers how to scale back, some members of Congress are pushing it to expand its role. In 2008, in the midst of the credit crisis, Congress temporarily raised the maximum FHA loan from $362,790 to as high as $729,750 for the most expensive housing markets. Lawmakers have introduced a bill to make that increase permanent. "A $500,000 loan in Massachusetts is like a $300,000 loan in Nebraska," says Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, who favors raising limits to $800,000 in the most expensive markets. "All we're trying to do is control for geography." Mr. Stevens argues the expanded limits should stay temporary, in keeping with the FHA's traditional focus on first-time buyers.

The FHA says the loans it is guaranteeing these days will turn a profit because the credit profile of its borrowers has improved. The average credit score for FHA borrowers has risen to 681, from 630 two years ago. The median U.S. score is about 720. Much of the improvement came as the FHA's lenders raised their own credit standards. Mr. Stevens, for his part, is painfully aware of how far the housing market is from recovery. He listed his northern Virginia home for sale last fall and already has slashed the asking price by $100,000, to $1.4 million. Before Christmas, he pulled the five-bedroom colonial off the market with plans to relist it later this year. He says he wants to live closer to Washington. "The commute is very hard," he says, "and the hours are very long."

FHA to Lift Mortgage Insurance Fees
The Federal Housing Administration will announce more-stringent lending requirements and higher borrower fees on Wednesday to cushion against rising defaults and stave off the need for a taxpayer bailout of the agency. The FHA, which has taken on a major role in the housing market during the economic downturn, doesn't lend money to home buyers, but insures lenders against default on loans that meet FHA criteria. In exchange for that backing, borrowers who take out FHA-backed loans must pay an upfront insurance premium, currently set at 1.75% of the total loan amount. The premium can be rolled into the loan.

The FHA is set to raise that fee to 2.25%, the second increase in the past two years, according to people familiar with the matter. The value of the FHA's reserves to cover losses has fallen to $3.6 billion, about 0.5% of the $685 billion in loans outstanding, down from 3% a year earlier. Congress requires the agency to maintain a 2% capital-reserve ratio. If the larger upfront fee had been in place last year, the FHA would have boosted its reserves by more than $1 billion. Also to boost the reserve, the FHA will ask Congress to increase a separate insurance fee that borrowers pay annually, people said. If the agency were to run short of cash to cover projected losses, it likely would have to ask Congress for money for the first time ever. FHA officials declined to comment.

The FHA, which backs as many as half of all new loans in certain housing markets, has come under fire for insuring loans with little or no money down as home prices have plunged over the past three years. With its reserves falling, the agency has been forced to walk a tightrope between protecting taxpayer dollars and helping to facilitate the housing recovery. The FHA will keep minimum down payments at the current 3.5% level for most borrowers. But the agency will require riskier borrowers with credit scores below 580 to make a minimum 10% down payment. While the FHA doesn't have a credit-score cutoff, most lenders require a minimum 620 score.

Some housing analysts have pushed for higher down payments on FHA-backed loans, and a bill in Congress would raise down payments to 5%, from the current 3.5%. Instead, the FHA will reduce the amount of money that sellers can kick in for closing costs to 3% of the sale price, down from the current level of 6%. The higher cap led to abuses where sellers "heavily marked up the purchase price," says Lou Barnes, a mortgage banker in Boulder, Colo.

The FHA is also set to announce a series of measures to boost its ability to oversee and take action against lenders that originate loans with FHA backing. "Mortgage lenders will find the new rules painful but necessary," says Howard Glaser, an industry consultant. He says the rules were overdue given that "an 'anything goes' environment" had prevailed in recent years as former subprime brokers migrated into FHA-backed loans.

Citigroup Isn't Out of the Woods Yet, Says Bank Analyst Chris Whalen
"Big banks have lost more than they’ve made over the past 50 years"

Citigroup shares are trading higher today after the bank reported fourth-quarter EPS in line with estimates. Investors appear undeterred by the bank's tenth-consecutive quarterly loss and disappointing revenue, choosing to take a positive view on Citi's results, as did CEO Vikram Pandit. Bank analyst Christopher Whalen of Institutional Risk Analytics isn't as positive as the rest of the market.  He maintains a "negative" outlook on the stock. 

Whalen worries credit losses will remain high; forcing Citi to increases loan-loss reserves. "If your clients aren't doing well, you’re not doing well," he says, citing both Citi and JPMorgan's weak revenue figures. "I don't see this as a great value story," Whalen tells Aaron in the accompanying clip. That goes for all the large banks. "Remember they've lost more money than they've made in the last half century," he states.

Citigroup loss signals more trouble for commercial banks
Wall Street may be drawing attention for its rebounding profits, but not all big banks are rolling in dough. On Tuesday, Citigroup posted a $7.6-billion loss for the last three months of 2009, the banking giant's first unprofitable quarter since 2008. Similar bad news is expected today when Bank of America Inc., Wells Fargo & Co. and U.S. Bancorp report their earnings. Although these commercial banks may have substantial Wall Street operations, they rely heavily on bread-and-butter consumer lending -- a business whose problems only now may be peaking along with the joblessness and other financial woes of ordinary Americans.

The picture is very different at Wall Street pillars Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, which mainly serve the financial needs of the world's largest companies. These investment banks were hit early in the financial crisis due to their heavy involvement in the market for mortgage-backed securities, which crashed in 2008. By the end of that year, of the five major Wall Street firms, only Goldman and Morgan Stanley were still standing as independent firms. And they recovered swiftly in 2009, allowing for the return of fat compensation packages. Morgan Stanley is expected to report strong fourth-quarter results today with Goldman Sachs following Thursday.

"In the case of Goldman and Morgan Stanley, you don't have to deal with the consumer -- and the outcome is good for them," said Richard Bove, a bank analyst at brokerage Rochdale Securities. "On the other hand, when you look at one of these big universal banks, they have these huge credit-card and automotive-loan divisions. They are all up to their heads in mud." Even JPMorgan Chase Inc., which last week reported a $3.3-billion fourth-quarter profit, had losses in its retail lending and credit-card operations. The profit came largely from its investment banking and private equity divisions.

At Citigroup, most of the fourth-quarter loss stemmed from an accounting charge linked to the company's exit from the government's Troubled Asset Relief Program. Even without that charge, Citigroup would have lost $1.4 billion in the period. The bank's ugliest results came in consumer banking, where losses widened from the third quarter. "U.S. consumer credit remains an issue," Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit said in a conference call Tuesday. Although the results were worse than expected, Citigroup's shares jumped 12 cents, or 3.5%, to $3.54, apparently because the company added less in the latest period than in the third quarter to its accounting provisions for future loan losses.

"Things have gotten worse, but at a much slower rate," said Gerard Cassidy, a bank analyst at RBC Capital Markets in Portland, Maine. Among the big banks, few have suffered as much as Citigroup from the mortgage meltdown and resulting crises and market downturns. For years, the company gobbled up firms from every corner of the financial realm, turning itself into a global financial supermarket. As a result, it got hit on all sides when the troubles began, especially on its stake in securitized mortgages. Last year, the company sold 14 divisions, including the storied Smith Barney brokerage.

Citigroup's fourth-quarter loss, amounting to 33 cents a share, was significantly better than its loss of $17.2 billion, or $3.40 a share, a year earlier at the height of the financial crisis. Still, Citigroup's stock fell 51% last year and remains down 47% from the end of 2008. The biggest contributor to the latest loss was Citigroup's swift push to leave TARP at least in part to escape the government's oversight on matters such as executive compensation. In December the company paid back the remainder of the $45 billion it received under TARP, but it also had to pull out of an agreement under which the government would have shared losses on some of Citigroup's loan portfolio. That helped lead to a $10.1-billion pretax charge against earnings for the quarter.

Citigroup's decision to pay back the government money was controversial, in part because to do so the company had to sell more common stock, diluting the stakes of its existing shareholders. Among the earnings reports due today, Bank of America has a massive credit-card operation that is expected to show big losses. Bank of America also has a large mortgage portfolio that it acquired when it purchased Calabasas home-loan giant Countrywide. Wells Fargo, based in San Francisco, acquired its own set of troubled loans in 2008 when it bought Wachovia and its California-heavy mortgage portfolio. "It's a meaningful chunk of the portfolio, and an even more meaningful chunk of their losses," said Bart Narter, senior vice president at consulting firm Celent in San Francisco.

Politically, the hottest numbers from Citigroup's earnings report are likely to be its compensation figures. The company put aside $6.3 billion in the fourth quarter to compensate its employees, an increase from the previous quarter and enough to give $94,290 to each of its 265,000 employees for the year. Citigroup did not follow the lead of banking giant JP Morgan Chase, which shrank its compensation pool in the fourth quarter compared with the third quarter amid the public uproar over banker bonuses. At the very top, however, Citigroup's Pandit has said he will forgo a bonus for 2009.

BofA, Morgan Stanley fall short; Wells Fargo sees profit
More banks on Wednesday followed the pattern set by earlier earnings reports from of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup: continuing losses for their lending operations during the fourth quarter offset by investment bank strength. But Wells Fargo, reporting an unexpected profit, did say that while loan losses remain elevated, the bank's confidence is growing that the worst of the cycle is over. Bank of America said it lost $5.2 billion during the final three months of 2009 as consumers struggled to make their mortgage and credit card payments and the bank repaid its government bailout money.

Bank of America said its loss, which reflected payment of preferred dividends, compared with a loss of $2.4 billion a year earlier. The bank said its results were boosted by strong results from its Merrill Lynch investment banking operations. Bank of America, among the hardest hit financial companies during the credit crisis and recession, set aside $10.1 billion during the fourth quarter to cover soured loans, down nearly 14% from the previous quarter. But it also reported big losses in its mortgage and credit card businesses. The bank lost 60 cents a share, more than the 52 cents analysts were expecting, according to Thomson Reuters.

Bank of America said its global wealth and investment management unit saw its net income rise to $2.5 billion in the quarter, up from $1.4 billion a year earlier, driven by the addition of Merrill Lynch. JPMorgan Chase, which reported a $3.28 billion profit on Friday, also said its investment banking earnings offset loan losses. Many analysts predict loan losses should peak some time in the first half of 2010. On Tuesday, Citigroup said it lost $7.58 billion in the fourth quarter as consumers continued to struggle to repay loans and the bank repaid its government bailout. The bank said it set aside $8.18 billion to cover bad loans during the most recent quarter. Bank of America said $4 billion of its loss came from the costs of paying back $45 billion in government bailout money in December.

Morgan Stanley results miss expectations
Morgan Stanley said it earned $617 million during the last three months of 2009 as its investment banking operations profited from its Smith Barney joint venture. Morgan Stanley said it gained 29 cents a share on $6.8 billion in revenue. That was less than analysts' expectations of 36 cents on $7.8 billion in revenue, according to Thomson Reuters. But investors appeared pleased by the results, sending the company's stock up in pre-opening trading. Morgan Stanley said its revenue was hurt by an accounting charge resulting from the continuing improvement of credit markets. However, the bank said the Morgan Stanley Smith Barney joint venture more than doubled the revenue from its global wealth management operations to $3.1 billion.

Wells Fargo is seeing early signs of improvement in its lending portfolios as it reports an unexpected fourth-quarter profit. Wells Fargo said that while loan losses remain elevated, the bank's confidence is growing that the worst of the cycle is over. The bank said Wednesday it earned $394 million, or 8 cents a share, in the last three months of 2009. It lost $3.02 billion, or 84 cents a share, a year ago. Earnings were reduced by 47 cents per share tied to the repayment of $25 billion in government bailout money. Analysts were expecting a loss of 1 cent a share. Wells Fargo set aside $5.91 billion for loan losses during the quarter, down 30% from a year earlier.

Barclays faces £17bn shortfall
Barclays may have to axe its dividend and extend the begging bowl to shareholders again to fund a £17bn shortfall in capital under proposed new global rules for the banks. The forecast of "a potentially sizeable capital deficit" because of planned changes in regulation was made yesterday by analysts at Credit Suisse, the bank's broker. The predicted shortfall is even larger than the £12.8bn forecast last July by JP Morgan. According to Credit Suisse, capital requirements proposed by the Bank of International Settlements would cut so deeply into Barclays' core tier-one ratio that "an immediate move to 8pc would require £17bn of equity". If requirements are increased to 10pc, as some policymakers would like, Barclays would need to raise £28bn.

Credit Suisse said that "in theory, it is possible that Barclays can manage the transition to the new rules without an external capital raise" as a three-year transition period is planned. Doing so, however, will require "a substantial tightening up of the business, the potential disposal of [Barclays' 50pc stake in fund manager] BlackRock and the freezing or even removal of the recently reinstated dividend". "In practice, restraining the bank to such an extent might not be the preferred choice of management," analysts added.

"We think a capital raise at some point in the future cannot be ruled out." Regulators are imposing tough new capital requirements on banks in an attempt to make them viable without taxpayer support. Higher-risk investment banking is being targeted in particular. Last July, JP Morgan claimed Barclays needed to allocate an extra £14.9bn of capital to Barclays Capital, its investment bank. The rules have led to speculation that Barclays will spin off the investment bank.

Brown win could spark Obama war on Wall Street
Scott Brown’s stunning capture of the Massachusetts Senate seat held for decades by Ted Kennedy was a political black swan, a near-unpredictable event. The result ends the Democratic supermajority in the Senate and leaves key parts of the Obama agenda in deep trouble. But the biggest loser just might be Wall Street. Desperate Democrats may see anti-bank populism as a way of holding power as the November midterm elections approach.

The last days of the heated Senate race saw the first attempts at that political gambit. Democratic candidate Martha Coakley’s allies in Washington, both the White House and national Democratic officials, used President Barack Obama’s proposed bank tax as a cudgel to bash Brown via emailings and telephone calls. But the game was probably over by then for Coakley. A combination of high unemployment, an unpopular healthcare reform bill and the candidate’s own lack of charisma and effective experience were more than enough to clinch an easy Brown victory.

A historic victory, really. It is hard to overstate just how "blue" a state Massachusetts is. Obama won it by 26 percentage points in 2008. Until now the state’s 10 U.S House members, two U.S. senators and all statewide officers were Democrats. The state hasn’t had a Republican U.S. senator since 1979. And, of course, the seat Brown captured had been held by the late Edward Kennedy since 1962. Now Brown’s victory threatens the healthcare reform bill that Kennedy championed on his deathbed. Democrats could still ram it through before Brown makes it to Washington. But potential legal challenges make that unlikely.

As it is, Brown’s election is enough of a systemic shock to freeze the political process on Capitol Hill. Moderate Democrats in both chambers are nervous about their previous "yes" votes for healthcare. They may be unwilling to make any more. The prospects look even bleaker for cap-and-trade energy legislation, a bill with even less support than healthcare. Financial reform legislation was already likely to get milder rather than stronger. But not so the rhetoric. Unable to trumpet the economy, hitting Wall Street is one of the few political bullets Democrats have left.

So expect the Obama administration to go all out for the bank tax with increasingly harsh words for big financial institutions. Democrats may also be more willing to consider controversial proposals banks hate, like letting judges rework mortgages. But given the Massachusetts precedent, it may not be enough to save the party from a wipeout in the fall.

New York Governor David Paterson of Seeks Huge Cuts
Gov. David A. Paterson proposed on Tuesday what would be the largest cut to school aid in more than two decades and nearly $1 billion in new or increased taxes and fees as he unveiled his budget, a plan that is likely to be the first chapter in a prolonged battle with the Legislature. Searching for new sources of tax revenue amid a fiscal crisis, the governor proposed legalizing mixed martial arts, allowing the sale of wine in grocery stores, taxing bottled soft drinks, taxing cigarette sales on Indian reservations and deploying speed-enforcement cameras in highway work zones.

He even proposed charging fees to many families that enroll in an early intervention program for children with autism, attention deficit disorder and other special needs, and delaying one of his signature achievements a plan to increase monthly welfare allowances. Facing a $7.4 billion deficit this year, the governor is presenting a relatively lean budget by the standards of a state government accustomed to unrestrained spending. His office also delivered more sobering news, projecting that the state's income will not return to the levels seen before the financial crisis until 2013.

The overall budget, including federal matching funds, would grow to $134 billion, up $787 million, or 0.6 percent, from the current fiscal year, which ends on March 31. State spending would increase $745 million, or 0.9 percent, to nearly $80 billion. "This is not a budget of choice; this is a budget of necessity," Mr. Paterson said in a speech to the Legislature on Tuesday morning. "Ladies and gentlemen, the days of continuing taxation and the days of continuous spending have got to end," he added. "The era of irresponsibility has got to stop. The age of accountability has arrived."

Several dozen lawmakers skipped the speech, which took place in a large egg-shaped auditorium here, and those who did attend greeted the governor's remarks with polite, if tepid, applause. Mr. Paterson has had a tense relationship with fellow Democrats, who control the Legislature, sometimes by design as he has sought to capitalize on voter discontent with the array of scandals emanating from Albany. Lawmakers expressed a mix of caution and skepticism on Tuesday. "Some of the stuff is retreads from last year that never quite made it, and I imagine they'll probably meet the same fate," said Senator Diane J. Savino, a Democrat representing Brooklyn and Staten Island, who singled out the soda tax and the proposal to allow groceries to sell wine.

Senator Malcolm A. Smith, a Queens Democrat, said the governor should not have allowed for an even modest rise in spending. "I don't think we really should be increasing it at all," said Mr. Smith, the Senate president. Senator Dean G. Skelos, leader of the Senate Republicans, said, "The greatest danger" was "the one posed by Assembly and Senate Democrats who no doubt will push to further increase spending and taxes just like they did last year." The leaders of the Legislature Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn and the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver of Manhattan said they needed more time to review the proposals.

As he faces an uphill election battle, Mr. Paterson's budget is also a break from the typical practice of robust budgets in election years. With no money to throw at preferred interest groups, Mr. Paterson is betting that voters will reward him as a responsible steward instead of punishing him as a Scrooge. His plan would cut school aid by 5 percent in a state with the highest per-capita spending on education. It would also slow the growth of spending on Medicaid, reduce by $1 billion spending on state agencies and eliminate $300 million in undesignated annual aid to New York City.

But Mr. Paterson avoided harsher medicine. He has made no significant cuts to the state's work force and even assured union leaders that he would not seek layoffs this year, a risky move as the state faces huge deficits in the coming years. His plan also assumes that there will be a significant recovery this year in the state's tax collections and relies on a number of recycled proposals. A new tax on sugared sodas, $1.28 per gallon, would yield $465 million, similar to a proposal that Mr. Paterson made last year but dropped amid resistance from the Legislature and companies like PepsiCo Inc., which is based in Purchase, N.Y.

Mr. Paterson is also proposing an increase in cigarette taxes, raising the tax per pack by $1, to $3.75, a change that would bring total taxes in New York City to $5.25 per pack. One of the most controversial measures is Mr. Paterson's proposal to slash school aid. Under the plan, wealthier districts would be hit hardest, a strategy that has long been fought by the State Senate, especially by senators from Long Island. Billy Easton, executive director of the Alliance for Quality Education, called it "a colossal reversal of New York State's commitment to providing every child with a real opportunity to learn."

Mr. Paterson is also seeking to shrink the state's troubled youth prison system, which is facing federal scrutiny and a class-action lawsuit. He wants to close perhaps the most infamous institution, Tryon Boys Residential Center in Fulton County, where a 15-year-old boy died in November 2006 after workers pinned him to the floor. Mr. Paterson also proposes consolidating or shrinking three other youth centers.

Another proposal would introduce fees to a state program that provides early intervention services for about 74,000 special-needs children. Families would be charged on a sliding scale, with fees starting at $180 a year for those with a household annual income of at least $55,126 and topping out at $2,160 a year for those earning at least $198,451. Mr. Paterson is also proposing new assessments totaling $240 million on the state's powerful health care industry on top of the nearly $1 billion in cuts in payments to health care providers.

He would close two tax loopholes, including one that allows people earning severance packages to avoid paying state income tax if they move out of the state. And he is proposing to restructure the state's property tax relief program, known as Star, to make it less beneficial for the wealthy. Budget watchdogs had a mixed reaction, although most said that the governor's proposal lacked the gimmickry that had characterized many previous budgets. "It looks pretty clean," said Elizabeth Lynam, a deputy research director at the Citizens Budget Commission, a nonprofit organization. "On the whole, I think it makes a reasonable down payment on the problems the state is facing."

Edmund J. McMahon, director of the Empire Center for New York State Policy, a conservative-leaning research group, said the governor was still proposing to spend too much. "What they're saying is, 'Look, we're below inflation now isn't that great?' " Mr. McMahon said. "The problem is you were several multiples of inflation ahead of personal income during one of the steepest recessions in recent history and you've got a lot of catching up to do, so this isn't good enough."

Unfunded Benefits Dig States' $3 Trillion Hole
Everyone seems to know the current path of federal fiscal policy is a deathtrap over the long term. What's peculiar is the relative inattention to the balance sheets of state and local governments. Hidden behind accounting fictions, the politically unspeakable reality is that public employee pension systems are under-funded by more than $2 trillion. Add more than $1 trillion in unfunded health-care benefits for retired public employees, and state governments face protracted structural deficits ranging from challenging to insurmountable.

Unfunded promises are the equivalent of government debt. The burden of promises made by state governments to their employees -- effectively an invisible wealth transfer from future taxpayers to current and prospective public-sector employees -- amounts to about one quarter of U.S. gross domestic product. The strength and durability of the current economic recovery are unknowable; that state and local governments, which employ one in nine workers, will be a drag on that recovery is certain.

Ultimately, mathematically unsustainable trends must reverse. As with New York City in the late 1970s, eventually the federal government may get involved in redefining the services state and local governments provide, the benefits paid to public employees and the burdens on taxpayers. States cannot kick the can down the road ad infinitum.

The starting point for addressing the long-term policy challenge is recognizing the math. Government accounting standards make a series of benign assumptions about the future and ignore the actual market values of pension investment portfolios. By those standards, public pension plans are 88 percent funded. Unfortunately, government accounting rules create economic fictions.

If we tweak one variable and use estimated real market values of pension investment portfolios for Dec. 31, 2009, pensions are about 75 percent funded. Using the more conservative standards imposed on every corporate pension plan, state plans are only about 60 percent funded, which translates into a shortfall of more than $2 trillion relative to the funding that should exist today.

The severity of the problem and the short-term focus of the interested parties create powerful incentives for elected officials and others to avoid doing the math. In New Jersey, some of us for years publicly and repeatedly suggested that the real shortfalls were multiples of official government actuarial figures. Over time, those draconian assessments regrettably proved to be correct. But leading local newspapers showed zero curiosity about the limits of government accounting and refused even to publish the warnings on the grounds that readers would be confused.

In theory, exceptional investment returns could cover any funding gap. But beyond the improbability of sustained returns above historic norms, a skeptic might argue public pensions frequently tend toward an investment process heavily geared toward reputational risk control -- which means averting political criticism -- under the nominal guise of prudent investment management. Although it may be counterintuitive, systems geared toward perceived safety and political risk avoidance may in fact increase investment risk.

My impression is that too many fiduciaries think they can play it safe professionally by mimicking the investment decisions of their peers in other states. Consultants, in turn, tend to be too sensitive to the herding instincts of their clients, reinforcing the trend to invest in ways that are only perceived to be safe.

The investment risk is a perpetual pattern of arriving late in the game to asset classes. Late arrivals create adverse crowding effects that dilute returns. But individual managers avoid what they believe is the greatest risk: failing in isolation. The perception of safety is strongest for investment strategies that have produced recent success and enjoy widespread institutional support. In fact, investment risk is often lowest when perceived risk is highest.

The herding effect is powerfully reinforced by how we interpret our legal responsibilities as fiduciaries. We are held to a prudent man standard. At any point in time, many of us might differ as to what constitutes a prudently positioned portfolio.

But the law in effect creates a safe harbor for fiduciaries imitating the most common strategies of other fiduciaries. The fiduciary at legal risk is the one pursuing an unconventional strategy. So we have an anomaly. Investment success arises from purchasing assets that are cheap because they are undervalued by the crowd. But the only unassailable defense against legal exposure is pursuit of the crowd.

In looking at the pension problem, I would draw three broad inferences.

First, there is a correlation in government between the creation of long-term liabilities and the propensity to rely on fantasy math.

Second, the parties to the arrangement suffer to the extent they fail to understand the math.

Third, there is an inverse correlation between the magnitude of a shortfall and the visibility of the issue. Precisely because the size of the problem precludes easy answers, it lies beneath the surface of the public dialogue.

Dubai's debt could be as much as $170 billion
The total debt of cash-strapped Dubai could be as much as $170 billion, much higher than earlier reported, according to a report by EFG-Hermes regional investment bank. "The total debt held by Dubai Inc could well be in the range of 130-170 billion dollars," the bank said in its 2010 UAE Yearbook, a copy of which was received by media on Tuesday. Dubai Inc is a term used to refer to the Dubai government and its government-related entities.

Dubai shook world markets in November when it said it wanted to request a freeze on debt repayments by its largest and most-indebted conglomerate, Dubai World. At the time, Dubai's total debt, including that of its state firms, was reportedly 80 billion dollars, with Dubai World owing 59 billion dollars. EFG Hermes said it estimated Dubai Inc's capital market debt, including bonds and syndicated loans, to have risen to 96.6 billion dollars in 2009, including funds raised by the government to meet debt obligations.

But it pointed to upside risks, which could take the total debt to $170 billion, highlighting a lack of data on bilateral loans between Dubai Inc and banks. "Bilateral lending ... is a bigger concern to us since the scale of lending could be very large and data are practically non-existent," the bank said. It estimated that the local Emirates NBD bank alone has roughly $24 billion in bilateral loans to Dubai Inc. It also warned that there could be some capital market debt that is unaccounted for.

Meanwhile, EFG-Hermes said voluntary restructurings of Dubai Inc's debt are likely, as around 75 percent of Dubai Inc's debt, which falls due in 2010-2011, is from syndicated loans. "The creditors involved are a limited number of banks, which will most likely take a relationship-based, long-term view of these liabilities. Therefore, we expect a high degree of voluntary restructuring," it said. Last month, international fears loomed over Dubai's ability to repay maturing Islamic bonds worth 4.1 billion dollar owed by Dubai World's property arm, Nakheel, when they were due on December 14.

But the payment was made thanks to last-minute financial aid extended by oil-rich Abu Dhabi. Dubai World has already started negotiations with its creditors to restructure the debt of its troubled subsidiaries, amounting to 22 billion dollars. Abu Dhabi has so far pledged 10 billion dollars to help fellow emirate Dubai sort out the debt problems of its firms, in addition to 10 billion dollars made available by the Abu Dhabi-based central bank of the United Arab Emirates.

It's Time to Get Practical
by Greyzone

Ham radio operators were fired upon when they tried to reach Port Au Prince to assist in setting up communications. They were fired upon by escaped convicts. Gangs return to Haiti slum after quake prison break. The gangs also went to the Justice Ministry and burned everything that still stood in order to destroy all criminal records forever in Haiti. They are armed with automatic weapons. They are killers. And now they are back in the population, en masse.

There are reasons why I tell people that they need to be prepared to defend themselves. Those of you who think you are safe in some gun control country like Canada or Britain and who live out in the countryside might want to ask some of the Serb rural folk how that turned out for them. Or maybe even how the wealthy fared in the former USSR as it crumbled. Those bent on evil towards their fellow man will always find a way to arm themselves. Britain has a larger firearms problem now than any time in the last 120 years and what is the British response? To propose more gun control laws. Gee, the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Some of you don't like this. Some of you will rail against it. Too bad. Homo sapiens is the red toothed ape. He is a murderer and a thief, by evolutionary selection. Wishing won't change that. Wishing didn't help the people in Haiti either as the machinegun and machete armed gangs descended on their neighborhoods, did it? As civilization continues the slow slide into the abyss, you need several things, among them are remoteness from most people and a way to defend yourself.

If you don't have those, I don't care how much food you can grow or how many PV cells you have or how good your insulation is. No, I am not talking of living like a hermit in a cabin. Find a small rural town at least 4 hours from any city over 100,000 population, preferably from any over 50,000 population. Find that town, become a member, become part of the community, and be prepared to defend it, even while you plant your garden, tend your goats, and repair your house.

At its peak, Rome was a million people. Not long after it was 30,000. No, those people didn't just all migrate to the countryside to become peasants. Most of them died. A large number of them were deliberately killed. Past is prologue. Serbia, Haiti, Somalia, Iraq - As Matt Savinar occasionally says, "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." You still have some time, people. Use it. And those of you who think things can still be fixed... good luck to you. You'll need that and an entire Santa Claus sleigh of miracles. Everyone else should be getting very practical already.

Moscow’s stray dogs
by Susanne Sternthal

Russians can go nutty when it comes to dogs. Consider the incident a few years ago that involved Yulia Romanova, a 22-year-old model. On a winter evening, Romanova was returning with her beloved Staffordshire terrier from a visit to a designer who specialises in kitting out canine Muscovites in the latest fashions. The terrier was sporting a new green camouflage jacket as he walked with his owner through the crowded Mendeleyevskaya metro station. There they encountered Malchik, a black stray who had made the station his home, guarding it against drunks and other dogs. Malchik barked at the pair, defending his territory. But instead of walking away, Romanova reached into her pink rucksack, pulled out a kitchen knife and, in front of rush-hour commuters, stabbed Malchik to death.

Romanova was arrested, tried and underwent a year of psychiatric treatment. Typically for Russia, this horror story was countered by a wellspring of sympathy for Moscow’s strays. A bronze statue of Malchik, paid for by donations, now stands at the entrance of Mendeleyevskaya station. It has become a symbol for the 35,000 stray dogs that roam Russia’s capital – about 84 dogs per square mile. You see them everywhere. They lie around in the courtyards of apartment complexes, wander near markets and kiosks, and sleep inside metro stations and pedestrian passageways. You can hear them barking and howling at night. And the strays on Moscow’s streets do not look anything like the purebreds preferred by status-conscious Muscovites. They look like a breed apart.

I moved to Moscow with my family last year and was startled to see so many stray dogs. Watching them over time, I realised that, despite some variation in colour – some were black, others yellowish white or russet – they all shared a certain look. They were medium-sized with thick fur, wedge-shaped heads and almond eyes. Their tails were long and their ears erect. They also acted differently. Every so often, you would see one waiting on a metro platform. When the train pulled up, the dog would step in, scramble up to lie on a seat or sit on the floor if the carriage was crowded, and then exit a few stops later. There is even a website dedicated to the metro stray ( on which passengers post photos and video clips taken with their mobile phones, documenting the ?savviest of the pack using the public transport system like any other Muscovite.

Where did these animals come from? It’s a question Andrei Poyarkov, 56, a biologist specialising in wolves, has dedicated himself to answering. His research focuses on how different environments affect dogs’ behaviour and social organisation. About 30 years ago, he began studying Moscow’s stray dogs. Poyarkov contends that their appearance and behaviour have changed over the decades as they have continuously adapted to the changing face of Russia’s capital. Virtually all the city’s strays were born that way: dumping a pet dog on the streets of Moscow amounts to a near-certain death sentence. Poyarkov reckons fewer than 3 per cent survive.
. . .

Poyarkov works at the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution in south-west Moscow. His office is small, but boasts high ceilings and tall windows. Several wire cages sit on a table in the centre of the room. Inside them, four weasels scurry through tunnels and run on a wheel. Poyarkov and I sit near the weasels and sip green tea. He first thought of observing the behaviour of stray dogs in 1979, and began with the ones that lived near his apartment and those he encountered on his way to work. The area he studied came to comprise some 10 sq km, home to about 100 dogs. Poyarkov started making recordings of the sounds that the strays made, and began to study their social organisation. He photographed and catalogued them, mapping where each dog lived.

He quickly found that the strays were much easier to study than wolves. "To see a wild wolf is a real event," he says. "You can see them, but not for very long and not at close range. But with stray dogs you can watch them for as long as you want and, for the most part, be quite near them." According to Poyarkov, there are 30,000 to 35,000 stray dogs in Moscow, while the wolf population for the whole of Russia is about 50,000 to 60,000. Population density, he says, determines how frequently the animals come into contact with each other, which in turn affects their behaviour, psychology, stress levels, physiology and relationship to their environment.

"The second difference between stray dogs and wolves is that the dogs, on average, are much less aggressive and a good deal more tolerant of one another," says Poyarkov. Wolves stay strictly within their own pack, even if they share a territory with another. A pack of dogs, however, can hold a dominant position over other packs and their leader will often "patrol" the other packs by moving in and out of them. His observations have led Poyarkov to conclude that this leader is not necessarily the strongest or most dominant dog, but the most intelligent – and is acknowledged as such. The pack depends on him for its survival.

Moscow’s strays sit somewhere between house pets and wolves, says Poyarkov, but are in the early stages of the shift from the domesticated back towards the wild. That said, there seems little chance of reversing this process. It is virtually impossible to domesticate a stray: many cannot stand being confined indoors. "Genetically, wolves and dogs are almost identical," says Poyarkov. "What has changed significantly [with domestication] is a range of hormonal and behavioural parameters, because of the brutal natural selection that eliminated many aggressive animals." He recounts the work of Soviet biologist Dmitri Belyaev, exiled from Moscow in 1948 during the Stalin years for a commitment to classical genetics that ran counter to state scientific doctrine of the time.

Under the guise of studying animal physiology, Belyaev set up a Russian silver fox research centre in Novosibirsk, setting out to test his theory that the most important selected characteristic for the domestication of dogs was a lack of aggression. He began to select foxes that showed the least fear of humans and bred them. After 10-15 years, the foxes he bred showed affection to their keepers, even licking them. They barked, had floppy ears and wagged their tails. They also developed spotted coats – a surprising development that was connected with a decrease in their levels of adrenaline, which shares a biochemical pathway with melanin and controls pigment production. "With stray dogs, we’re witnessing a move backwards," explains Poyarkov. "That is, to a wilder and less domesticated state, to a more ‘natural’ state." As if to prove his point, strays do not have spotted coats, they rarely wag their tails and are wary of humans, showing no signs of affection towards them.
. . .

The stray dogs of Moscow are mentioned for the first time in the reports of the journalist and writer Vladimir Gilyarovsky in the latter half of the 19th century. But Poyarkov says they have been there as long as the city itself. They remain different from wolves, in particular because they exhibit pronounced "polymorphism" – a range of behavioural traits shaped in part by the "ecological niche" they occupy. And it is this ability to adapt that explains why the population density of strays is so much greater than that of wolves. "With several niches there are more resources and more opportunities." The dogs divide into four types, he says, which are determined by their character, how they forage for food, their level of socialisation to people and the ecological niche they inhabit.

Those that remain most comfortable with people Poyarkov calls "guard dogs". Their territories tend to be garages, warehouses, hospitals and other fenced-in institutions, and they develop ties to the security guards from whom they receive food and whom they regard as masters. I’ve seen them in my neighbourhood near the front gate to the Central Clinical Hospital for Civil Aviation. When I pass on the other side with my dog they cross the street towards us, barking loudly.

"The second stage of becoming wild is where the dog is socialised to people in general, but not personally," says Poyarkov. "These are the beggars and they are excellent psychologists." He gives as an example a dog that appears to be dozing as throngs of people walk past, but who rears his head when an easy target comes into view: "The dog will come to a little old lady, start smiling and wagging his tail, and sure enough, he’ll get food." These dogs not only smell who is carrying something tasty, but sense who will stop and feed them.

The beggars live in relatively small packs and are subordinate to leaders. If a dog is intelligent but occupies a low rank and does not get enough to eat, he will separate from the pack frequently to look for food. If he sees other dogs begging, he will watch and learn. The third group comprises dogs that are somewhat socialised to people, but whose social interaction is directed almost exclusively towards other strays. Their main strategy for acquiring food is gathering scraps from the streets and the many open rubbish bins. During the Soviet period, the pickings were slim, which limited their population (as did a government policy of catching and killing them). But as Russia began to prosper in the post-Soviet years, official efforts to cull them fell away and, at the same time, many more choice offerings appeared in the bins. The strays flourished.

The last of Poyarkov’s groups are the wild dogs. "There are dogs living in the city that are not socialised to people. They know people, but view them as dangerous. Their range is extremely broad, and they are ?predators. They catch mice, rats and the occasional cat. They live in the city, but as a rule near industrial complexes, or in wooded parks. They are nocturnal and walk about when there are fewer people on the streets." My neighbourhood is in the north-west of Moscow and lies between a large wooded park and one of the canals of the Moscow river. Leaving the windows open once the thaw of spring finally took hold, I found myself pulled out of a deep slumber by a cacophony that sounded as if packs of dogs were tearing each other apart in the grounds of our apartment complex. This went on for weeks. I later learned that spring is when many strays mate – "the dog marriage season", as Russians poetically call it.
. . .

There is one special sub-group of strays that stands apart from the rest: Moscow’s metro dogs. "The metro dog appeared for the simple reason that it was permitted to enter," says Andrei Neuronov, an author and specialist in animal behaviour and psychology, who has worked with Vladimir Putin’s black female Labrador retriever, Connie ("a very nice pup"). "This began in the late 1980s during perestroika," he says. "When more food appeared, people began to live better and feed strays." The dogs started by riding on overground trams and buses, where supervisors were becoming increasingly thin on the ground.

Neuronov says there are some 500 strays that live in the metro stations, especially during the colder months, but only about 20 have learned how to ride the trains. This happened gradually, first as a way to broaden their territory. Later, it became a way of life. "Why should they go by foot if they can move around by public transport?" he asks. "They orient themselves in a number of ways," Neuronov adds. "They figure out where they are by smell, by recognising the name of the station from the recorded announcer’s voice and by time intervals. If, for example, you come every Monday and feed a dog, that dog will know when it’s Monday and the hour to expect you, based on their sense of time intervals from their biological clocks."

The metro dog also has uncannily good instincts about people, happily greeting kindly passers by, but slinking down the furthest escalator to avoid the intolerant older women who oversee the metro’s electronic turnstiles. "Right outside this metro," says Neuronov, gesturing toward Frunzenskaya station, a short distance from the park where we were speaking, "a black dog sleeps on a mat. He’s called Malish. And this is what I saw one day: a bowl of freshly ground beef set before him, and slowly, and ever so lazily, he scooped it up with his tongue while lying down."
. . .

Stray dogs evoke a strong reaction from Muscovites. While the model Romanova’s stabbing of a stray demonstrated an example of one extreme, the statue erected in his memory depicts the other. The city government has been forced to take action to protect the strays, but with mixed results. In 2002, mayor Yuri Luzhkov enacted legislation forbidding the killing of stray animals and adopted a new strategy of sterilising them and building shelters.

But until Russians themselves adopt the practice of sterilising their pets, this will remain only a half-measure. One Russian, noting that my male Ridgeback is neutered, exclaimed: "Now, why would you want to cripple a dog in that way?" Even though the city budget allocated more than $30m to build 15 animal shelters last year, that is not nearly enough to accommodate the strays. Still, there is pressure from some quarters to return to the practice of catching and culling them. Poyarkov believes this would be dangerous. While the goal, he acknowledges, "is to do away with dogs who carry rabies, tapeworms, toxoplasmosis and other infections, what actually happens is that infected dogs and other animals outside Moscow will come into the city because the biological barrier maintained by the population of strays in Moscow is turned upside down. The environment becomes chaotic and unpredictable and the epidemiological situation worsens."

Alexey Vereshchagin, 33, a graduate student who works with Poyarkov, says that Moscow probably could find a way of controlling the feared influx. But that doesn’t mean he thinks strays should be removed from the capital. "I grew up with them," he says. "Personally, I think they make life in the city more interesting." Like other experts, Vereshchagin questions whether strays could ever be eliminated completely, particularly given the city’s generally chaotic approach to administration.

Poyarkov concedes that sterilisation might control the number of strays, if methodically conducted. But his work suggests that the population is self-regulating anyway. The quantity of food available keeps the total steady at about 35,000 – Moscow strays are at the limit and, as a result, most pups born to strays don’t reach adulthood. "If they do survive, it is only to replace an adult dog that died," Poyarkov says. Even then, their life expectancy seldom exceeds 10 years. Having spent a career studying the stray dogs of Moscow and tracing their path back towards a wilder state, he is in no hurry to see them swept from the streets.

"I am not at all convinced that Moscow should be left without dogs. Given a correct relationship to dogs, they definitely do clean the city. They keep the population of rats down. Why should the city be a concrete desert? Why should we do away with strays who have always lived next to us?"


1 – 200 of 248   Newer›   Newest»
el gallinazo said...


Wow! That was some blast from a usually pretty low-keyed guy.

OK. I read Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine - Diaster Capitalism slowly and carefully a couple of years ago. Here we have a truly classical disaster. Obama appoints two of the biggest scumbags in the country as fundraisers. Obama's head honcho, Rahm Emanuel could well qualify for the award as the worst scumbag politician in the country who isn't a Republican. His most famous motto (Never let a serious crisis go to waste) could have been a sardonic cartoon by Klein.

So for me the meaning of Ilargi's opening monologue was:

1) Don't give the scumbags your money out of knee jerk guilt. If you wish to contribute financially toward helping the Haitians, find a worthy pathway and be circumspect.

2) Keep your eyes open, as a learning experience, over the following months as to how the aid is subverted to the interests of the Empire. Of course there is nothing we can do about this.

snuffy said...

Why do I get this feeling that o-man will use this as a excuse to not rock the boat a bit...and say "Well,I didn't have the support I need...just like that POS Clinton did.This gives him the perfect out to try and play a "black" Clinton.Sure,he will "Work"with the republicans on "Hard"issues like once again selling the working folk Down the Fu#king river,and on other things to "show his bi-partisenship".I saw this game with Clinton...who he is doing his dead level best to imitate,after all,why change a winning formula?the only problem is a whole lotta people figured out just how badly we got screwed by "slick willy"and have no desire to see what cute little games O-man has in waiting...and I am sure there is more than a few...after all gold-in-sacks still has this years profits to make,before it all goes *KA- blooewy*
This guy is almost as bad as bush-the-lesser.I cannot stand to hear him talk anymore,and its only one year into his game...
This year is already looking real , real ,fug-ugly

[loud scream]


Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


Great work!

The 10 reasons by Paul Farrell is a masterpiece. I think it deserves a permanent place on the front page.

Tonight's episode of the Daily Show is also very apropos. You might consider featuring it on the next front page.

Frank said...

@el G. I read Wyote as responding to the mass pile on against the US miltary going to Haiti.

His point is that a serious police presence is needed, as is a bunch of coordinated plane unloaders and truck drivers. Soldiers are second, okay third, rate police, but they are available by the thousands. Real police would have to be teased out ten and twenty at a time from around the world and would not know each other.

Soldiers unload planes and drive trucks as well as anyone. They can show up anywhere tomorrow, with one boss who can talk to the UN and USAID and make a plan. It sounds "least bad" to me too.

Today on NPR I heard an interview with some flack from the UN Boondoggle on Migration explaining why they had yet to pass out single tent. Granted they didn't get the tents till Sunday. Still she was hoping for Friday to actually house someone. Lots of complex reasons.

Usaco Marine officer last Sunday afternoon (if he had the tents instead of the UN: "This is your land? [oui] That {nicely phrased} pile of rubble was your house? [oui] Life sucks, but I can give you a tent for your family right now. [Merci bien]

The UN chick was all worried about replacing the shanty towns with permanent communities. That's a really good idea. As an excuse for not helping people who used to live in permanent communities until you can fill out the forms to help the shanty town crew as well, it sucks.

Frank said...

Dammit Usaco bashers, you suck. I live in a town of 800 people in New Hampshire, and you are just plain wrong.

In the summer of '08 when Obama and Clinton went back to Unity, New Hampshire where each had gotten 107 votes, you claimed it was a fraud. You are wrong. I live two towns away, so I do not actually know the supervisors of the checklist who signed that return. I do know the ones in my town, and I believe, like I believe the sun will come up tomorrow, that the folks in Unity submitted an honest number. (And the folks in Concord passed it on honestly because four people in Unity could have and would have sent them to jail if they had not.)

M said...

Thanks to Ilargi for posting the wonderful Kate McGarrigle video. After being bombarded by American media with the chest-thumping antics of right-wing tea bag degenerates the last few days, it’s nice to hear the down home voices of real human beings.

Those are the sounds and dignified demeanor of a bygone generation who knew what real earth dirt felt like.

VK said...

The U.S. debt limit would be raised by $1.9 trillion to $14.29 trillion under an amendment proposed in the Senate.

'Nuff said.

Ilargi said...

Yeah, and then there's this:


Jobless claims unexpectedly jumped 36,000 to 482,000 for the week ending January 16. The U.S. Labor Department qualified the report, saying the data was skewed higher by a backlog of claims stemming from the year-end holiday period.

The four-week moving average for initial jobless rose 7,000 to 448,250.

Meanwhile, continuing claims declined 18,000 to 5.99 million -- their lowest level in a year. A year ago, initial jobless claims totaled 575,000, continuing claims totaled 4.58 million, and the four-week moving average was at 526,500.

Also, states reported 5.65 million persons claiming Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits for the week ending January 2, the latest week for which data is available, an increase of 652,364 from the prior week. A year ago, there were 2.09 million EUC claimants.

Overall, a record 12 million Americans received federal and state unemployment benefits on an unadjusted basis in the week ended Jan. 2, the latest period for which the data is available. This is up from 10.9 million in the prior week.


Them's ugly numbers. Over 1 million claimants added in one week. Wonder how many store closings are hidden in there.

On February 4 (?!), the 824.000 unemployed the BLS "missed" a year ago will be added to the tally.


zander said...

repost from yesterday
A question to (US)TAErs.

Being from the UK it is hard to gauge the social mood in the US, and I realise that it could swing wildly in a land so vast.
Is the election result (which is getting big coverage here) down to mostly
A. widespread rejection of the proposed healthcare reform, which, we are now being told is going to be seriously diluted.
B. Obama's unexpected genuflection to the wall street/banking ollies.
C. the horror in the US that after such an almighty fanfare bugger all has changed much.
D. something I'm missing.

thanks in advance.


zander said...

just in from work,
Markets are tanking


Greenpa said...

Wyote- I understand your frustration and anger.

Military and Usacobashers, I understand your frustration and anger.

Sorry, but I do.

Here may be the reason; and again, I'm terribly sorry it took me so long to put this together- I think as an ethologist etc, I should have done so long ago. Though I've never heard this analysis anywhere else. Just maybe- it will help.

Greyzone; it was your article that triggered my little aha-

"Some of you don't like this. Some of you will rail against it. Too bad. Homo sapiens is the red toothed ape. He is a murderer and a thief, by evolutionary selection."

Aha. There it is. NO- he isn't. Really, and truly. Which is not to say redtoothed apes don't exist, in spades. They do.

Here it is: do you guys remember my long story about Tinbergen's gulls; and the ones that cheat on the rules? The study in particular took a left tern when he was discovering the rules for how gulls manage their colonial nesting; where each pair has exactly 2 square feet of territory, and there are a million pairs in the colony. Each must defer to neighbors; neighbors signal their intent to land nearby, or pass peacefully through to the other side, and the resident pair allows this. But- way into the study he discovered that some gulls cheat- they give all the legal signals; then steal and eat the egg, or chick. And the victim parents are basically helpless to respond.

It carries a universal truth- the ones who follow the rules- play fair, and are peaceful- MUST MUST MUST- outnumber the cheaters.

It's essentially a matter of behavioral mimicry here; the egg thieves mimic the peaceful-

Patterns in mimicry are well studied. For the mathematically inclined here's a nice introduction:

One thing to remember is that mimicry situations are not stable; they fluctuate constantly depending on many variables. I'd suggest Mexico, Juarez in particular, is a place where conditions have now generated so many "mimics" (ie. criminals) that they are now forced to prey on each other. While in Costa Rica, perhaps, the great majority of people are currently in the "model" category- i.e. nice folks; peaceful, truthful, and generally kind; and the mimics- who only pretend to be nice people, are uncommon enough that they create mostly surprise when they "feed".

The confusion for everyone arises when we wish to describe humans as a unit; humans are all this; or that.

We are NOT all this; nor that- in particular we are not all "basically good" nor "basically predatory", nor "basically evil".

In fact- our numbers, now some 7 billion, suggest that at least 5 billion of us are basically "nice".

You know- I think this might actually be an important insight.

Those of us currently in despair about the horribleness of humans- think again.

Aunt Martha predominates. Mafias, of all kinds, are much fewer in numbers. (yes, and there are those in the middle; don't quibble in the middle of my epiphany.)

The thing to remember is- when you meet your next Aunt Martha- you have to remember- she could, indeed, be a mimic; just waiting.

Somehow, we have to not let that spoil life for us.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


In response to your question posted this morning under the previous topic, I offer the following comment, which I shamelessly stole from blogger stevelaudig over at ClubOrlov. It is an excerpt from a work by one of your countrymen Douglas Adams. Mr. Laudig, if you read this, I apologize for the blatant plagiarism.

From Douglas Adams [the other Addams family]

"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see..."

"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"

"No," said Ford, ..."nothing so simple. Nothing anything like to straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."

"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."

"I did," said Ford. "It is."

"So," said Arthur, ... "why don't the people get rid of the lizards?"

"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want."

"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"

"Oh yes," said Ford ... "of course."

"But," said Arthur, ..."why?"

"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard might get in.

So, it seems all we can say with any certainty is that Ms. Coakley was the wrong lizard. I hope that answers your question. If that is not adequate, I recall that in another instance Mr. Adams wrote that the answer was 42. :)

Anonymous said...


In my opinion, the voter result in Massachusetts is bad news for the Democrats but not necessarily good news for the Republicans. Please understand that the US electorate can be broadly categorized as left, center, and right. Left and right segments each occupy about 30% of the voter population with the center occupying about 40%. Winning and holding the center is key to success in American politics. Obama did this with his "hope and change" theme during the 2008 presidential election.

Now fast forward to today. Hope and change became Wall Street bailouts, staying in Iraq instead of leaving, horrible economic conditions on Main Street, and a hands off attitude towards greedy fat cat bankers. The center bolted, not FOR Scott Brown but AGAINST Obama and his cronies.

Obama has been sent a huge message by the voters. He is going to pretend that it matters but as Ilargi often notes, men like Obama really do not run the show. It's the people behind the curtains. So the game is about to change. Besides, the ultra-wealthy have already ripped off the US taxpayer for trillions of dollars and they can rip them off for a few trillion more on the way down too.

The Massachusetts vote was more of a disapproval of Obama and his policies than it was a vote for Scott Brown and the Republicans. And the leading Democrats know this and are terrified for their political futures. Why are they terrified? Because they sold their souls to the Wall Street devils and now there is no way out just as the devil is coming to collect his due.

To Cheryl,

You better have your stops in place. First quarter this year is likely to be a slaughterhouse. The US Dollar has broken through key barriers at 78.4 on the Forex and even today as some traders tried to drive it back down, it resisted and is rising towards 78 again. And when the dollar rises during a recession, Wall Street goes to hell.

jal said...

Given the political impossibility of reducing costs, will Democrats actually try raising taxes to retain US solvency?

Is National Bankruptcy Just What America Needs?

Figure 1 in the WEF report plots various risks based on their severity in US dollars,

They are:

Asset Price Collapse: more than $1 trillion, more than 20% likely

Chronic Diseases: about $1 trillion, about 20% likely

Fiscal Crises: about $1 trillion, about 20% likely

While I hear people talk of their kids and grandkids being handed the debt, the reality is it will never be repaid.
That is because the kids and grandkids won't work just for a roof, a meal.


Greenpa said...

Speaking of mimicry;

I'm having a hard time putting a bad spin on that one. Almost looks like a bunch of people trying to do the right thing.

Greenpa said...

Here, also, is a nice introduction to the ins and outs of "aggressive" mimicry-

scandia said...

@ Zander...just had a look, Ca,Us,Eur all started a precipitous fall. What triggered that simultaneous response?
Asia market, on the otherhand ,is not tanking.

Whether to help in Haiti? I am hearing that some responders see the current, to-day,short term need. Others view historical past and the longer term requirements for sustainability.
Both responses , IMV, are needed.
I think the historical record speaks for itself. It seems obvious that Haiti is of strategic importance. Can't yet answer the why? One thought is that it may be an outlet through which to launder money, a nation with a broken banking/legal system ( as prisoners burned records)that will be a sitting duck for the dark side.

Ilargi said...

Specifics for Stoneleigh's talks tonight in Vancouver and tomorrow on Salt Spring Island will follow in this space shortly.

Greenpa said...

Sigh. You thought US campaigns were nasty before?

It'll get worse- instantly.

Amy said...

Ilgari, So I was looking back at your last thread on donations and it appears all discussion of Haiti has been removed from the comments. Have you censored those posts? No need to post this but I would like to know. email

Amy said...

el gallinazo, then why not say it that way? Why post a topic that is seeming to say a whole lot more than those simple points? I avoided the Red Cross for the reasons discussed. And Obama appointing or inviting those two to be spokespeople... well, isn't this just another move by Obama that everyone disagrees with? So nothing really new there.

And meanwhile, on facebook, my friends are desperately trying to get help to a woman who is still alive buried under rubble and texting. An army unit will likely respond.

I just am having such a hard time these days with the dramatic language people are using on these economic blogs and comparing Haiti to the US and our possible future

... debt slaves? Oh, so you mean that I drive a nice car (have a loan), live in a house (have a mortgage) and am warm, work 8 hours a day and have a small debt, eat 6 meals a day (3 main and snacks) makes me a SLAVE?


Maybe you need a refresher course on just how a slaves lived in this country or live today in other countries. For that matter, on the topic of Haiti, maybe you should research the life of a restavek slave in that country or child slavery all over the world. Then tell me that my voluntary indebtedness to stuff (I have a car loan and mortgage) could even begin to compare.

The comparisons being made are just stretching the truth far to much all for dramatic effect.

Ilargi said...

Here are the data for Stoneleigh in the wild west:


"Stoneleigh" on Green Light this week. We are set up for a phone interview on Thursday at 4:05pm. The radio show can be heard live at


Talk Vancouver:

Place: Windsor House Alternative School - operates at the rear of the Lucas Center for Continuing Education- 2132 Hamilton Avenue, North Vancouver.

Heading west on Marine Drive (bus or car) turn/walk north/right up Hamilton Avenue - it's not a major intersection so look for a Rogers Video Store at the corner. After a 10 minute walk up the hill, Hamilton Ave bumps into the Lucas Centre - drive/walk through the parking lot to the rear of the building - end of parking lot.

Date/Time: Thursday January 21- 7:30PM. Donations accepted.


Talk Salt Spring

Finance blogger Stoneleigh from The Automatic Earth ( is coming to SSI for a slideshow and discussion onThe Resurgence of Risk : a Primer on the Developing Credit Crunch. Topics include how financial markets, energy supplies, currencies, labour markets, empires and societies will be affected by credit collapse.

Friday, January 22, 7pm at Mahon Hall. Donations accepted.

The premise of TheAutomatic Earth has been unwavering since Stoneleigh and her blog-partner Ilargi, first began writing: the world is about to enter (and parts of it already have entered) a multi-decade economic depression brought on by the collapse of a worldwide hyperexpansion of credit. Unlike other depressions, where standards of living have generally increased after their conclusion, peak energy will ensure that the world remains at a lower level of activity indefinitely.

Greenpa said...

I very much like Gail Collins, the political humor columnist for the NYT. Typical of humorists of course; she speaks more truth than the serious journalists.

Weaseldog said...

Let's put impeachment on the table.

Has Obama proved himself to be anything except a smoother and more polished version of George Bush?

The White House crimes with a complicit house and senate are going to continue. We're in an economic war, and the banks are defeating Lady Liberty.

If we're going down, let's at least put up a fight.

Shamba said...


thanks for the great story on the dogs of Moscow. the other ones were informative but I loved the dog story as fellow dwellers on planet earth.

would you please tell me what time zone you write in? I'm sorry i don't remember exactly where you are in the great neighbor to the north!

peace, Shamba

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


Taking a sooty tern from your epiphanial post, back in the day when we would shoot two guys into the sky to fall we sorta knew where, I spent a year on Ascension Island. There's little to do there, so watching the sea birds was a popular pastime.

When the sooty terns were nesting and a frigatebird would glide overhead, almost all the adult terns would take-off and fly crazy multi-level patterns over the nesting ground. I never saw any frigatebird dare try to dive through them to snatch a chick.

The multitudes are not only mostly nice, they will also take communal action to fend off obvious predators. There are some Mafiosi among the naked apes, but there are a lot of Aunt Marthas and I believe they will do what they must.

Weaseldog said...

Amy, you really, completely missed the point I made.

The world is post peak on energy and resources.

Our population continues to expand.

we are on the same trajectory as Haiti, we're just a bit behind them on the curve, because we had nations like Haiti to exploit for so long, to keep us fat.

We're in the decline now. It can't be stopped. It's a force of nature.

Our economic problems have been triggered by the current state of reality, the contraction of resources. The age of growth is over, and our efforts to bring it back, simply distort markets and make it impossible to prepare.

I know that you don't understand these things, but over time, you will. As our crisis deepens, it will become obvious to everyone.

It's a simple fact of nature, that you can't keep growing a population when the resources needed to support them, are in decline.

The generations that follow mine are going to have increasingly brutish lives. I'll likely see some of that before I go out. By 2050, we may well have a world population of only two billion, living hand to mouth. And declining.

Weaseldog said...

Amy said, "Then tell me that my voluntary indebtedness to stuff (I have a car loan and mortgage) could even begin to compare."

Have you been through your bankruptcy or foreclosure process yet?

It's coming.

jal said...

Greyzone said...
“... men like Obama really do not run the show. It's the people behind the curtains. So the game is about to change. Besides, the ultra-wealthy have already ripped off the US taxpayer for trillions of dollars and they can rip them off for a few trillion more on the way down too.”

What ever happened to when a President could say, “ I agree, now make me do it”.

How things have changed!

Now its the Lawmakers, who are in the drivers seat, that are saying, “I agree, now make me do it”.

Obama has just made a speech on reforming banks and given marching orders to the Lawmakers.

However, like Greenpa said...
"... The thing to remember is- when you meet your next Aunt Martha- you have to remember- she could, indeed, be a mimic; just waiting.
One thing to remember is that mimicry situations are not stable; they fluctuate constantly depending on many variables."

Could the Lawmakers be waiting for their chance to get away from their “controllers" and “do the right thing”?
Thanks for the info on Stoneleigh's schedule.

$$$Dollar$$$ said...

A SECOND day of declines? No way. If I see a sustained pattern of this (wave C) I might jump in with some shorts. Staying pat for now though.

zander said...

I think you answered a question I didn't ask TATS :)

Mostly B&C then with a little bit of D.

@ Cheryl from a previous post.
I have to hand it to you girl, you did say the election result might end the rally, and you may just have called the top :)


Weaseldog said...

Amy, I'm trying to think of a way to make my point from yesterday clearer.

My point was that Americans don't see the crushing debt Haiti is under as being a problem, because they see the problem in the light other their own debt problems.

They are oblivious for the most part, and will not notice as Haiti slips back into a hell, made worse be exploitation.

This is how you and I currently live the good life, and is considered the natural order of things, by many in the first world.

Many people think that poverty comes from being bad. Thus the Pat Robertson quote about Haiti being punished by God for making a pact with Satan.

I didn't say that our debt slavery is the same as wearing shackles. I was making the point that Americans will support the enslavement of Haiti because they will view it through the lense of their own experiences.

Do you understand me now?

zander said...

@ scandia

And gathering pace now.


el gallinazo said...


Have you ever read Joe Bageant's Deer Hunting with Jesus? The best extended analysis of debt slavery I have ever read. Debt slavery is when the interest on your debts rises to the point that you cannot pay it and live a reasonably decent life in any respect. As Joe points out in his wonderfully colorful prose, the vast bulk of Redneck Nation is there already. Most of the Quiche Eating Nation are just entering debt slavery or have it to look forward to.

if you lost your job, your bank folded and the FDIC gave you the finger, but your car loan and other debts were not forgiven but rather, enforced with great enthusiasm, would you then become a debt slave?

Actually, I am rather surprised that you attend this blog. Of course, you have every right to and your contrary opinions liven the stew. But it is time consuming and you appear to reject all of I&S's analyses of where the steam roller is heading. Why do you waste your time?

scandia said...

@ Greenpa, Thanks for your thoughts on mimicry. Isn't that what Madoff did- looked so philanthropic,kindly,upstanding. In the meantime he was stealing all the nest eggs.

scandia said...

@ Z, quite dramatic movement. Let's see what happens at 2 P.M. Noticed UK market took a turn for the worse around 3P.M.
I am fascinated by the timing, the lockstep changes.

Eric Lilius said...


"Stoneleigh" on Green Light this week. We are set up for a phone interview on Thursday at 4:05pm. The radio show can be heard live at

Is is this 16:05 Pacific Time

Ilargi said...

"Is this 16:05 Pacific Time"

I would guess so.


I's enjoying me some of that funladen CET


I have no idea what you mean. On the bright side, at least that's true in several ways.


el gallinazo said...

amy said...
"Ilgari, So I was looking back at your last thread on donations and it appears all discussion of Haiti has been removed from the comments. Have you censored those posts? No need to post this but I would like to know. email"

You are new here. Ilargi very rarely pulls posts, and when he does, he usually announces in the comment section, that so-and-so is persona non grata. As to canceling topics, e.g. the famous diet wars or the 9/11 inside job topic (my personal favorite and we moved it over to VK's blog), he always gives a warning. Furthermore, he would never cancel a topic about which he centered his opening essay. It would be absurd. As I said, you are new here.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


In the here and now, I'm sure that your obligations to the banksters don't feel much like slavery. Of course, here where we live true slavery is illegal. Ask yourself though if you would work that 8-hour job if you could live just as well without any debt. If you don't pay the debts, the Masters (of the universe) WILL punish you. You could think of it as a kinder gentler form of slavery.

BTW, I saw somewhere recently that ancient records, possibly written before God created the earth, indicate that unpayable debt may have been the first cause of actual slavery. I'm just sayin that maybe one should not be so dismissive toward the concept.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


I'm sorry, I thought I had answered your question, which was:

Being from the UK it is hard to gauge the social mood in the US, and I realise that it could swing wildly in a land so vast.
Is the election result (which is getting big coverage here) down to mostly...

IMHO, if our elections had anything to do with social mood, we wouldn't have them, because we hate them. It really is people casually examining two lizards and doing that thing we hate just to make sure the wrong lizard doesn't get in.

Of course, people cannot agree on which is the wrong lizard, so the vote is almost always somewhere near 50-50. Except for the occasional landslide, which we now know are caused by Republicans. :)

Due to my impenetrable ignorance, I have no idea what TATS means. Please educate me.

Zaphod said...

As for slavery:

The homeless, we say they are mentally ill.

Those in projects, are lazy drug-addicts.

Those on reservations, are lazy alcoholics.

Those in Haiti, are short-sighted over-breeders

Those in the slums of Nairobi, Calcutta, and Bangladesh, are backward, HIV-denying over-breeders hit by a drought (or flood, or hurricane...).

Those of us in Suburbia, though, we're sharp, educated, motivated, self-controlled pilots of capitalism and masters of our domain. A pity they can't all be like us.

Or just maybe, we're all slaves (some willing, some not so much) to the same global capitalistic machine. Many of us ARE the machine, a privileged few steer, and most are simply pushed aside or crushed between the gears, as the gaping maw of the firebox chews our natural resources.

In society, where does valuable specialization end and elitism begin?

el gallinazo said...

This is a forward from Kurt in Portland to me. I downloaded iCab Mobile but haven't had the time to take it around the block much. However, iCab was my default browser for a couple of years when I had a Pismo running OS 9, and the guy knows how to program, so it's probably pretty damn good. I did develop a machine gun right index finger and was able to scroll to the bottom to reach the comments in 30 seconds are so.

I seem to recall that you own an iPod Touch, as I do. And you probably read The Automatic Earth on it, as I do. And you probably have wished about zillion times that you could scroll directly down to the comments section, or at least close to them, with the mobile Safari app. Which you can't do.

However, Apple is now apparently allowing other companies to release browsers for the iPod/iPhone platform. I've been using one for a couple of days that seems pretty promising: iCab Mobile. It has a few really good features: number one in my book is the "jump to position:" you touch the screen with three fingers, and it gives you a grey rectangle that you can can touch once to jump to the corresponding absolute position on the total page. To jump to the bottom of the page, for instance, touch the bottom of the grey rectangle.

The other thing it has is a filter feature. It is finally possible to filter some of those stupid elements on the right side of TAE that slow down the page loads. In fact, you have to filter some to be able to read TAE off-line, else they mess it up. I've had to add the following two filters so far:


Check it out. $1.99 at the iTunes store.

zander said...


No mate, the apologies are on me, I didn't take the time to equate your response to the first part of my Question.
TATS = thanks all the same.


Punxsutawney said...


Some limited polling indicated:

A: Yes, at least the senate version.

B: Definitely – Hence Obama appearing with Volker, so maybe something good there. Times are hard for many and there’s a lot of resentment toward the trillions going to Wall Street.

D: Anti-incumbency.

And I agree with Greenpa’s post earlier.

The real story today is the Supreme Court decision eliminating any restrictions on the amount of corporate spending for elections. That’s a big step toward fascism here and will give those with the most $ a means to buy politicians. That’s not to say it’s not already true to a great extent.

Amy, good luck to you if or when you lose your job or income.

Stoneleigh - Sorry I missed you here in Oregon. Kid's activities needed to take precedent.

Gravity said...

Orgy-porgy, Ford and fun,
kiss the girls and make them One.
Boys at One with girls at peace;
Orgy-porgy gives release.

Anonymous said...

El G @ 12:46 p.m. -

Well said!

I suspect Amy must be ignorant of topics discussed at TAE and/or in denial regarding her/our predicament. Of course, there is the possibility that Amy is not sincere...

Re mimicry:

All sociopaths mimic virtue to achieve their ends. They pretend to feel altruism and empathy in order to control and further deceive.

Isn't this what the sociopathic political/corporate rulers of the US empire do? Isn't this what Obama does with his words? Let's see, he gives lip service to a Martin Luther King, Jr. and then acts like Cheney... So according to the ruling elites (and the 80% of Americans who supported the Iraq War), for example, "shock and awe" was necessary to deliver democracy to Iraq. Well, how about delivering food and medicine to Haiti with "shock and awe" and "drones"? Naturally, it will never happen since the mission of the US military is to kill, destroy and exploit, not an altruistic institution for sure. Hence, don't expect anything good coming from the imperial/industrial military of the USA, which has the biggest weapon budget the world has ever seen!

Anonymous said...

Re reported violence in Haiti

Yes, there are gangs and "free" prisoners committing crimes, but according to Amy Goodman there is also this:

The people who are working around the clock here, what they have shown us, in talking with the Haitians here, is not—I think we’re talking about anarchy of the government, but incredible communal strength of the community. These refugee camps, these smaller and larger camps that number in the thousands, they are organized communities. At night they’ll put rocks across the street. If you didn’t know these communities, you’d say, “What’s going on here? Right? Are these, you know, anarchists? Are they violent? Are they menacing?” They are protecting their communities and those within. And they don’t want those from outside to come in, especially at night. It’s remarkably organized at the local level, among neighborhoods, people helping each other.

That’s what Sister Mary Finnick talked about. She said, when aid workers, when all the big journalists finally get here, they’ll be talking about the riots, because people are so desperate after a week. What do you think will happen if you bring out a pallet and there are so many more people than the food that’s being provided? She said, “But what’s not told is, in these first days, when the people showed all of their remarkable Haitian courage, courage and strength, and helped each other through these desperate times.”

Ilargi said...

And now the whole charade is all legalized... It's the entire corporate personhood travesty, revised once more by the Supreme Court, and we can all guess at how long it will take to do another review.

Where's George Orwell when you need him? Benito?

Supreme Court Says Limitless, Independent Corporate Campaign Spending is Okay

The Supreme Court reversed a century of campaign-finance law Thursday morning when it ruled that corporations, unions, and nonprofits should be allowed to pour their financial resources into presidential and congressional campaigns. The majority decision by Justice Anthony Kennedy and the rest of the Court’s conservative wing, said that corporations have First Amendment rights and should be able to engage in political speech. 

In the 5–4 ruling, the majority said that “political speech is so ingrained in this county’s culture that speakers find ways around campaign-finance laws. Rapid changes in technology—and the creative dynamic inherent in the concept of free expression—counsel against upholding a law that restricts political speech in certain media or by certain speakers.” 

Today’s decision opens the door to limitless independent corporate spending. Corporations can pull together their financial resources to create television or radio commercials to support a political candidate. The ruling does not allow corporations to spend endless amounts of money on direct campaign contributions; money that would go directly into the candidate's bank account to travel or produce campaign materials. As long as corporations don’t interact with a specific political campaign, they can directly buy ad time to support a candidate.

A lot more at the link.


Zaphod said...

Sometimes the simplest approaches work.

A bunch of Marines and Haitians were readying a food/water distribution point. The local needy were restless, yelling, and shoving, trying to get to the goods.

No threats, no guns, no fences, and no yelling was needed: the marines simply sat down calmly, and told their helpers to do the same. Nobody moved until the crowd self-calmed, which took only a minute or two.

As soon as it was obvious that an orderly crowd would be served in an orderly manner and an unruly crowd would cause delay, behaviors changed instantly. The crew got to work and quickly distributed the goods without further incident.

The camp also self-organized so that the children were the first to be fed. Altruism and violence are both just between the surface of most of us, and surprisingly little can shift the focus.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

CNN has a report up that the military have managed to reopen a small old pier in Port-au-Prince and that a couple of ships have already unloaded. Also, systems are being set up to help them identify what inbound aircraft are carrying so they can prioritize which aircraft should be allowed to land, with priority given to medical supplies. Except for perhaps a few tourist paradise islands, Caribbean airports are small and have little room to park airplanes.

zander said...

Another thing, Is it just me or has the whole climate issue melted, pun intented, since Cop summit, I've never known an issue of such importance to totally evaporate so quickly, it's almost as if, sadly, we as a people, have simply given up on this one, as if Cop was the the last nip in the bottle, could we be spiralling towards the great give up on all issues as stuff deteriorates,.... maybe this is just a UK mood.
I fully expect a tirade from rightly indignant ever active activists now.
Richard Heinberg need not apply.


zander said...


Big falls in all markets 'cept Asia,
Be interesting to see if this one rebounds...wouldn't surprise me, it would kill off the last 1%.


Jim R said...

So apparently not only does money talk, it has rights now. Free speech.

Does it also have responsibilities? Can we subpoena it to testify? I've got a $5 bill right here from 1986, maybe it has some new evidence on Iran-Contra.

Mebbe we should extradite some of that money from Caymans bank accounts eh...

Gravity said...

The employees and shareholders of corporate entities already appropriate their proportional vote in general elections, completely negating the need for additional privatised expression of political power through monetised discourse, any needs befitting specific personhoods are sufficiently covered by collateral suffrage of constituent elements.

Greenpa said...

" Corporations can pull together their financial resources..."

Yup. And, we're so dumb, mmoo, moooo, it won't occur to 99% of us- "hm, just where DO those corporate financial resources COME from?"

I bet they're gonna cut bonuses to pay the new huge advertising bills. No? Wages? No? Profits to stockholder? No? Money to build more CrapMarts? No?

Ya think they'll raise prices, just a tad?

So WE get to pay, out of our overflowing coffers, for what will I guarantee become an astonishingly ugly- and often slickly sophisticated- tsunami of utterly useless disinformation.

Oh, what a good idea.

Next on their list you know, since corporations now have the same constitutional right to free speech that other citizens do-

What about the Corporate Right To Bear Arms, huh?? The constitution applies to ALL - this precedent says.

By god, you can have my cluster bombs, nerve gas, and attack helicopters when you pry them from my cold, dead, tentacles.

Weaseldog said...

Now that Corporations are people, shouldn't they be allowed to vote?

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


RE: the Gail Collins humor piece.

Jon Stewart played a video clip last night of Brown's available daughters bit.

Per Douglas Adams interpretation of electoral politics, if he was not "the wrong lizard" then should we not conclude that the rate of decline in the quality of our lizards must be accelerating at what I would describe as a breath-taking rate?

Now we take that and couple it with a SCOTUS decision that corporations aren't just virtual persons, but apparently actual persons with an unlimited right to tell unspeakable lies against their least favored lizards. Which brings me to the really critical question, is there enough bandwidth available to sandwich even a tiny bit of entertainment programming in among the attack ads that will be forthcoming, or should we just go ahead and put our TV sets out on the curb?

Bigelow said...


“And now the whole charade is all legalized... It's the entire corporate personhood travesty, revised once more by the Supreme Court, and we can all guess at how long it will take to do another review.”

How do you spell Coup d'état

Greenpa said...

IM -"I spent a year on Ascension Island. "

Ok, really jealous here! :-)

"When the sooty terns were nesting and a frigatebird would glide overhead...

The multitudes are not only mostly nice, they will also take communal action to fend off obvious predators. "

Just to keep it clear for the less biologically adept- our problem as humans is NOT the frigatebirds. We do still rise, sorta, against common alien enemies; even if they are "alien" because they eat frogs.

Our problem is the good neighbor who; when you are rising to fend off the frigate birds, or just taking a nap, steals your truck while you're distracted. It's the evil sooty terns we're talking about here.

And; the main Epiphanolupagus is : IF evil soot terns EXIST - and they manifestly do- that actually means that MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING - the good terns MUST outnumber them.

Or the species, per se, must collapse- breeding and rearing children will become impossible- if all the gulls steal each other's eggs. You can't do it.

I know who stole my truck. If he were a coyote who killed my sheep, I can just get out the 30.06; but since he's a neighbor- that's a little more tricky.

scandia said...

@Ilargi... the carte blanche for campaign contributions is another step toward claiming person's rights by saying this right ensures privacy and legal support not to publically disclose how much went to whom and when. All of a sudden many activites are outside freedom of information provisions.
How much less transparency can there be? Sigh...

NZSanctuary said...

Corporations granted right to buy political campaigns...

The last dregs of democracy are being dismantled... even the illusion of democracy seems to be falling away

VK said...

@ IM Nodbody

is there enough bandwidth available to sandwich even a tiny bit of entertainment programming in among the attack ads that will be forthcoming,or should we just go ahead and put our TV sets out on the curb?

Ever heard of Tivo? :)

VK said...

@ Greenpa

Now most human beings share the same genetic code. I believe 99.7% of my DNA is the same as yours. But that 0.03% accounts for about 300,000 or so differences?

What I'm trying to piece together regarding your comments is does this all lead to that concept of inclusive fitness? If inclusive fitness is maximized by being helpful and altruistic then such behaviour is elevated by society. When inclusive fitness is best served by wars, genocide etc then we see the rise of that type of behaviour - to maximise survival of our genetic pool.

Now I'm going to take up game theory for a bit and paint some broad strokes. But in a positive sum game where there are abundant resources, there is more likely to be helpful, altruistic behaviour. But in a negative sum game, an era of declining resources there is more likely to be selfish, cheating type of behaviour as that would be rewarding for inclusive fitness.

Now I reckon memes are really important, the basic unit of information that drives social herding IMO. In a society with abundance, we have these memes floating around about abundance, personal growth, win-win attitude and a positive message on life. As social mood changes, the memes that are going to be floating around soon will be of lack, of poverty, of decline. So what I'm trying to say is that, although humans have an inherent sense of good in them, there is also the lingering dark side, that we so famously so espoused in Star Wars and the future might see a sharp rise in improper conduct due to the memes sending signals to our genes to change their ways to being more selfish and possibly more murderous as Greyzone suggested in his post.

TAE Summary said...

* Statements starting with "This is not meant to be sexist" usually are

* Haitians showed courage and strength through desparate times;
They are remarkably organized at a local level; MSM doesn't report this

* Don't give scumbags your money out of knee-jerk guilt; Be careful how you help others so that they actually get the help

* Usaco bashers suck; Soldiers are poor policeman but can unload trucks and planes tolerably well

* Daily Obama Amalgam:
- A vote for Brown was a vote against Obama
- He will claim lack of support
- He will "work" with the Republicans on the "hard" issues
- He is a black version of Clinton and smoother, more polished version of GW Bush
- He is changing his name to Martin Luther Cheney
- He doesn't really run the show
- Let's put impeachment on the table

* The markets tanked in response to a brown swan event; Shorts are getting interesting but can split when too tight

* For society to work law-abiders must outnumber cheaters; Today Aunt Marthas out number Bernie Madoffs; In order to cheat people Bernie sometimes wore Aunt Martha's clothes; Prison will help him learn not do this in prison

* Being the center lizard is essential to political success; Martha Coakley was the lizard for sheep on the left; Scott Brown was the lizard for sheep on the right but also had center fold appeal

* Rednecks are already debt slaves; Quiche Eaters are heading that way; Maybe America needs bankruptcy; The debt will never be repaid

* US citizens are debt slaves with houses, cars and toaster ovens; When you are evicted and repo-ed you will still have your toaster oven

* If you disagree with I and S then reading TAE is a waste of time; Only the insincere disagree with I and S; My blog or the high blog

* Our economic problems were triggered by resource contractions; Those who don't understand this will have grandkids that are nasty, brutish and short

* The Supreme Court today reaffirmed that corporations are persons; Haiti is being punished for making a pact with Satan; Usacos wisely made a pact with a more reliable devil, except for homeless Usacos who are by definition mentally ill

Shamba said...

Ilargi said: shamba,
I's enjoying me some of that funladen CET

Oh, Central European Time, you're still in Europe.

or Mittel Europaische Zeit, I believe it's called also. I' ve had a lot of German in my life but I don't think I spelled that quite right. MEZ ...

Safe traveling to all,

NZSanctuary said...

Greenpa said...
"Wyote- I understand your frustration and anger.
Military and Usacobashers, I understand your frustration and anger...
It carries a universal truth- the ones who follow the rules- play fair, and are peaceful- MUST MUST MUST- outnumber the cheaters."

Nice post - like so many of yours are. Thanks.

Ilargi said...

Listen to Stoneleigh right now at

click listen live....

sv koho said...

So corporations now have similar rights to people! Illargi is bound to make this the heart of an upcoming post. Of that we can be sure. So if the corp is a person, can it be imprisoned, executed, sued, slandered and waterboarded or will it continue to have special rights unique just to a corporation? If you thought that the corporations financial and otherwise, already owned the guvment, then maybe this new decision just codifies what most of us already knew.And you thought the whole election process was corrupt before this little gem from the Thomas/Scalia court.....

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

VK said...

Ever heard of Tivo? :)

Ever heard Frank Caliendo say Dish DVR? :)

'twill do us no good if every available Hz of bandwidth is modulated with bombastic attempts to portray lizards as being almost as unworthy of holding an office as they actually are. But, you know that some interesting food fights could break out as the networks are also corporations. Quite possibly the SCOTUS ruling might also have manacled the FCC with regard to anything free speech related.

Democracy will be missed, but lets be honest, has it REALLY been working for us? Massive infusion of Corpo money just guarantees that it will not work for us even more effectively than it already doesn't.

Whee! It's time for a drink VK.

Starcade said...

And of course now the corporations can spend whatever they want to bribe their elected officials (they sure as Hell aren't ours), and Obama has begun the road to effectively killing anyone off whose presence only increases the Federal deficit (with the agreement to begin the process of slashing Federal Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

I am only left to hope that either my roommate goes quietly in her sleep or properly channels her anger, because she's a dead woman walking now.

Greenpa said...

VK- ooh, you are going to give yourself SUCH a headache. I recommend a year on Ascension Island; sitting and watching sooty terns.


All that stuff applies to the terns, too. But knowing it wouldn't really change anything for them.

All the good stuff, and all the bad stuff, would still go on, and still happen to them. Yup, there'll be dead babies- frigate birds, bad storms-

But what you would see is- millions of terns, living rather buoyant lives, mostly.

Starcade said...

Basically, at this point, after that piece of crap the SCOTUS put out today on campaign finance, I'm just waiting for the literal "One dollar - one vote" motif, and corporations can become the sole voters on everything -- including who lives and who dies.

Ilargi said...


Corporate personhood goes back to 1886, Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific Railroad Company.


Ilargi said...

* If you disagree with I and S then reading TAE is a waste of time; Only the insincere disagree with I and S;

Says who?

* Our economic problems were triggered by resource contractions;

That urban myth just won't die, will it?


Bigelow said...

“In July, the Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama's visit, held diplomatic discussions in which they skirted issues of human rights and Tibet. Notably, the Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about the cost of Obama's health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese landlords have an interest in buying the White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

The potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of the fact that the source and control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who the heck are the real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, "Who are these guys?"
We'll never know.”
Manchurian Candidates:
Supreme Court allows China and others
unlimited spending in US elections

Anonymous said...

Weaseldog, corporations were granted personhood in the late 19th century, the 1880s as I recall but I may be off by a decade or so. This action follows logically from that first action. The error, as I see it, was in first granting corporations personhood at all.

But if you want to see part of why the United States is the mess it is today, follow the decisions.

1. Corporations granted personhood.
2. Henry Ford tries to do "good deeds" with his corporation but is blocked by his shareholders, who sue and the Supreme Court rules that a corporation has as its first and primary duty the obligation of maximizing profit for those same shareholders.
3. Corporations are allowed "political" speech.

Now look at that chain of decisions. First we grant artificial entities personhood status under the law. Then the law forces these "persons" to behave in a manner, that if it were done by a flesh and blood person, would be considered seriously mentally ill. Now, after granting mentally ill artificial constructs legal status, we are about to turn over our entire electoral process to these same psychotic entities.

And people wonder why my faith in homo sapiens ability to destroy itself remains unshaken? Ha!

Punxsutawney said...

It will be interesting to see how publicly traded corporations will report campaign spending, given a toothless SEC and a FASB likely to do their bidding. Will it get lumped in “Other Expenses”, or will it need to broken out. When I worked in the fortune 500 corporate world, it was too small an expense to be broken out in the financials. As I recall, and it’s been a number of years since I’ve worked in this area, is that lobbying and political expenditures were not tax deductable.

It’s probably too much to expect of the average person, but if publically traded companies had to report the expenditures and where they went, then theoretically individuals could decline to use those companies’ services when they are supporting politicians they disagree with. Easier said than done when there is no choice to begin with; i.e. internet service: Comcast, or Verizon, neither of which will be on the consumer’s side. And if this did start to work in the average person’s favor, you can bet the politicians would change the rules quickly or risk pissing off their sugar daddies.

And that will have nothing to do with private corporations that have little or no public reporting requirements. There are tremendous amounts of wealth tied up in private foundations and corporations.

Frank said...

@Zander on climate change. I've noticed that too. It really bugs me that the denyers were half right. It sure looks like Brussels and the UN were running a power grab here, promising bribes to the fourth world to get a claque.

Note, not the scientists, who are telling the truth and scared as hell. And the fourth world is well and truly scrod. Just don't pretend that the, agreeadly different, deal they would get from the Eurocrats and the UN would actually be better than the US would give them.

Instead, Obama cut a deal with BRIC plus South Africa. Japan doesn't care, their emissions are declining anyway.

So now there's no money for the UN or power for Brussels. Listen to the deafening silence.

Anonymous said...

Ilargi, thank you for the link. I'm listening to Stoneleigh live! Awesome! :)

Ilargi said...

"Is it just me or has the whole climate issue melted, pun intented, since Cop summit, I've never known an issue of such importance to totally evaporate so quickly"

Climate change will happen, done deal. No use wasting time or worrying about it. Copenhagen was a show, not a conference. "Evaporate" is an ironically -or is that cynically- appropriate term. Worry about finance instead, I suggest.

Carolyn said...

Stoneleigh, That was a very good interview and discussion on CFSI radio. TAE podcasting???

ric2 said...

VK -

Not sure if you saw a great series of posts over at HuffPo earlier this year by David Sloan Wilson on evolution, group selection, and kin selection. His Truth and Reconciliation II: The Original Problem will give you some more perspective for your analysis. For social animals like man, it is important to note the difference between behaviors that confer advantage to an individual locally within a group (where he/she is competing or cooperating with other individuals within the same group) and behaviors that confer advantage to the individual's group as it competes/cooperates with other groups.

This helps explain how behavior such as a soldier throwing himself on a live grenade to save his squad could have evolved. Obviously, such behavior doesn't help the individual soldier pass his genes on to the next generation. But his behavior does help the group to which he belongs, and back when this behavior evolved in our primate ancestors, would have helped genes of his kin have a better chance of being passed down to the next generation.

Essentially, evolution selects for behaviors that can help an individual or the individual's group. Often these behaviors may be at odds with one another (behaviors which benefit the individual may often hurt the group and vice versa).

He ends the post with this pithy quote:

Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish groups. Everything else is commentary.

Erin Winthrope said...

Stoneleigh's radio presentation:

Stoneleigh, you are an amazing communicator. You just gave one of the best and most effective presentations of our predicament that I've ever heard. You should really consider doing audio broadcasting more often. You speak just the way you write - calm, articulate, and deeply erudite. So many people who speak about peak credit and peak oil are either overly excitable or too smug when they're placed in front of a microphone. Those strategies do a disservice to the message and limit its reach. You, on the other hand, have a straightforward, no-nonsense, and down-to-earth approach to your audio presentation that is very effective. Perhaps you and Ilargi could consider audio updates where you just talk about the events of the day or the week or the month. Anyway, thanks for the wonderful show today!

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

Greyzone said...

And people wonder why my faith in homo sapiens ability to destroy itself remains unshaken? Ha!

Our ability to do it is unquestionable. The quibble is over whether or not we will. I think what Greenpa and I have been saying is, why would we do that? What homo sapiens has shown over and over, is that even a lousy way of life is a way of life and they cling to it.

It doesn't really matter that much though, because if we aren't that crazy, Gaia will do us in her own good time. My view is that we shouldn't expend much time thinking about conditions in 2525.


Delighted to hear Stoneleigh on the radio! Thanks.

Frank said...

>>That urban myth just won't die, will it?

Explicitly mentioning blind spots, consider the possibility that $147 oil was the seed crystal dropped into the supercooled liquid of 'mark to fantasy' securities.

The timing might be only coincidence. You clearly believe this, but all your arguments that I recall are about 'it had to happen sometime' rather than 'why in September of 08 and not May of '08 or February of '09'?

Also, I recall you being quite vehement a year ago that all of OPEC had to be pumping flat out, and Why in the Name of XXX didn't the price of oil collapse?

Meanwhile the real oil folks (WestTexas, Rockman and a couple others) over on TOD were saying that the extra oil simply wasn't there. They admitted to not knowing where it was, but based on decades in the biz, it.was.not.there.

In the spring it turned out that China had been putting a million barrels a day (100 million total) into storage, which covered the actual level of OPEC cheating.

IOW, I believe that resource constraints in 2008 rather than in 2015 are your blind spot.

Why does it matter? If the 'urban legend' is right, we'll have resource issues again years before you think we will.

Lindsay said...

VK - since you are so interested in evolutionary psychology and how it applies to altruism etc, I think you might enjoy the work of David Sloan Wilson. He's published heaps of academic stuff, and has a blog too:

Frank said...

>>Climate change will happen, done deal. No use wasting time or worrying about it.

You and I are going to win. We keep our rain, and get warmer. Rocks for farmers.

Ilargi said...


You're either full of it or you have a real bad memory.

Ken said...

We would really like to get some inforamtion on when and where Stoneleigh is speaking in Victoria BC, we are long time followers.
Thanks Ken & Patti

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


Methinks you may be a bit too optimistic about the effects of climate change. Even the little bit we've already had is raising hell with farming. Local farmer had to spend about $85k to put track units on his combine this fall because of saturated fields. My nephew dropped his combine in sinkholes three times. The final time required a mini-excavator and D7 Cat to get it out. After that he decided to wait until the ground froze to finish that field.

It won't just be a warmer world. It will be a wild unpredictable climate. Precipitation patterns will change, in fact they are changing. Storms will build intensity we can hardly imagine. Coastlines will be radically altered. As Keith Farnish and Dmitry Orlov wrote in their most recent post on climate change, "Our worst-case scenario is that our worst-case scenario is going to continue getting worse and worse."

Ilargi said...


Don't know about Victoria, but in one hour Windsor House Alternative School - operates at the rear of the Lucas Center for Continuing Education- 2132 Hamilton Avenue, North Vancouver. Tomorrow Salt Spring island. And that's all the dates for now. Sorry if you can't make that.

ben said...

thanks again stoneleigh and rototillerman for your efforts in portland. if i may, the lecture reminded me of Crash Course, but heavier on finance and verbally much better conceived. if she continues the tour sometime then bring people with you. it quite possibly moved two people in my life measurably towards their awakenings. i think it will take some time and perseverance on their part for the message to sink in, and i hope it does because they were picked for a reason! as for my brother, who attended - he knows but is avoidant - hopefully it will prod him to expand his focus beyond the market he has been waiting for months to short. perhaps he, too, will start to think about what he can do to try and help guide people through. i believe he was very much impressed with stoneleigh's intellect and the level of circumspection she displayed during the q&a.

regarding greenpa's boosterism, i understand his underlying concerns, but prefer the honor system as it is here at tae. friends like these! (if it's not working we can always be given a goal to reach.) to me, free things of importance, physical or otherwise, have always held their value best.

as for receptivity, if an audience can't separate the message from the medium then it is a lost cause anyway.

the cream will continue to rise to the top. (another example being rototillerman's oatmeal-raisin cookies, which were delicious, despite being of the oatmeal-raisin variety.)

at worst, let the money-minded respond quizzically when considering stoneleigh's mode of operation, as my friend did. i did a poor job of responding, but i recall including the words grassroots and benevolence.

on tuesday it became clear to me what others have suggested here, that stoneleigh embodies the equanimity in collapse.

bluebird said...

I am so disappointed to have missed hearing Stoneleigh. Is it possible that the station archived the show to a podcast?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
snuffy said...

The actions of the supreme court have put a shadow over my whole day.The last bits of "America"that I thought I knew are gone now.The new ,[fully owned and operated] corporation AMERIKA INC.just killed and ate its parent.

This will put everything for sale now.With the coming economic tsunami,just about every last thing of any value will be broken up and hauled away.With Nafta,Gata And the davos group now controling congress,the court system,and government I expect to see things that will boggle the mind,as the coming free for all starts...

We had a nation once.
It was killed by corporations.
Now comes the storm


Josh said...


In your radio show interview, you didn't seem very certain about the time frame for next phase of the financial crisis. 2 or 3 days ago, you wrote that the next phase down will likely start any day now. When you were asked about time frame in the interview, you replied sometime this year. Sometime this year versus any day now sounds like two very different characterizations of timing. Are you now open to the possibility that the rally could extend until the end of 2010?

M said...

With all the TAE hand wringing over the SCOTUS decision, I notice only one slight mention of what side of the court prevailed in this decision.

Which proves mighty convenient considering all the claims from the various posters on this site asserting no difference between the D’s and the R’s.

This evil decision, which surely has Lucifer celebrating tonight, was committed by Republican appointees. Dem appointees voted against this decision.

Of course, sensible and rational citizens have always been aware that Supreme Court appointees are one of the most potent results of partisan ideology.

But then again, I have to agree with a particular poster on Krugman’s blog: In modern day America there is only the main Republican party and the other slightly less so.

Punxsutawney said...

One thing about the Southern Pacific Railroad Supreme Court case in the late 1800's. The court itself didn't rule that corporations were persons, but the Clerk of the Court (of the conservative persuasion) wrote it on the header, or in the notes later. And the rest is history so to speak.

Stoneleigh said...


I don't have a specific talk scheduled in Victoria as no one had requested one. I will be arriving there Saturday evening from Saltspring Island and flying out painfully early the next morning. I'm not averse to meeting people while I'm there, but I don't know the area at all. I had been thinking of just heading for the airport, but I'm open to suggestions.

Stoneleigh said...

Thank you so much to Todd, Rototillerman, Jon, Steve and Annette, Jay and Farmerod for organizing talks, playing live music for me, letting me stay with you and/or driving me around all over the place. I appreciate it tremendously. This has been an amazing week so far. I can't remember the last time I had this much fun, and I have every intention of returning to the pacific northwest :)

Stoneleigh said...

Lord Bacon,

To clarify, I expect the rally to end imminently, but that doesn't mean I expect all hell to break loose immediately. It takes time to build up momentum to the downside. Where the market leads, the real economy will follow, but not right away. It is not clear to me at this point how long a time lag there may be, but my guess would be perhaps measured in months. It depends how severe a downturn we experience in the markets. The more severe it is, the less time lag I would expect.

zander said...

Ilarghi....Worry about finance instead, I suggest.

Yeah I got that bit a while ago thanks to this blog, I just wanted to comment on the fact that CC reached "fad" status, like a novelty single that spends weeks at no 1 yet no one ever remembers it years hence.
I'm slowly but surely prepping in what I hope are all the right directions, and staying solvent and sane as the UK winds down.

Outside of the Cop fiasco and the token gestures "negotiated" there, some people will always deny 'till theres nothing left to prove.
A good friend who works for the Met office has been going to the Arctic since the 70's and says that witnessing an ice shelf (or part of) collapsing then was a rare and special event, ten a penny now, and spiralling out of control, this is where most of the change is happening at the mo but will eventually permeate
throughout the globe, this guy got no reason to invent this and knows his stuff, I've got no doubts CC is for real, unfortunately, like Ilarghi says, this guy reckons the fix is in for the first phase of what is to come due to warming, it's phase two (whatever that is) they are hoping to put the brakes on.
As to the benefits of disrupting a stable climate system, well.......
Its a no brainer, what good could ever come of that?


Tristram said...

In the Supreme Court's recent further nullification of democracy, perhaps the consideration of corporations as legal persons is not the key element. Rich individuals can always do the bidding of corporations even if the fictional hands of the corporations themselves are tied. They have been doing fine so far.

The bigger problem is how the first amendment is read, literally or metaphorically. It says:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ...

Those right-wing "strict constructionists" on the SC could read the terms speech and press strictly: speech is opening your mouth and using the human voice to say something in language. The press is a device for printing words on paper. Instead, they read the terms metaphorically to maximize the influence of money. A corporate hit video distributed on cable television systems and/or broadcast television for an eight-figure fee is considered "speech" (or "the press," not sure which).

That is a joke, of course. The first amendment was written with no vision of electronic media, especially those with strong network effects or subject to monopoly. Speech strictly defined is inherently equalizing because almost everyone can speak, and soap boxes are not expensive. A printing press has low capital requirements, so even dissidents and rabble-rousers and ordinary people can afford them. Not so broadcast TV networks, or cable systems, or radio stations.

In fairness, one must admit that liberals had some role in the metaphorical stretching of speech to include armbands, t-shirts, nude performance art, etc. But the real crime was committed by right-wingers who want to take advantage of the monopolistic properties of capital-intensive modern media to nullify democracy.

Net result is: everyone is eyes-glued on Osama while John Roberts' buddies steal the country.

scandia said...

I've been spotting some int'l comments about Obama's " plan " to rein in the banks. The tone is that noone really believes he'll actually do it, just more spin in response to the loss of the Kennedy senate seat. I feel the same. I've been burned by belief in Obama once, twice,thrice...not again. He is going to have to go into some pretty focused action, transparent action. Folks like me and those int'l journalists want to " see the money " first.
An action Obama could take to gain some of the lost credibility would be to lay criminal charges.
Like immediately...
Up here in Canada our on the lamb prime minister still has full access to the media. He is preping the populous for hard times to come under his continuing leadership, that provincial gov'ts will also make cuts. The strategists must figure that by painting such a threatening but unspecific picture their upcoming budget in March will seeem reasonable.
Historically Canada has the highest deficit ever and the gov't intends to add another $170 billion to that burden by 2015.
The warnings from the PM must mean taxpayers/citizens are going to take the hit, not the elite financiers.

re the SCOTUS ruling is there a legal description of " person " in US law? I am now wondering if Cdn law has such a definition. Our rhetoric uses " individual " rather than person.
Now that corporations are person what is the corporate body? If the person " Kraft" for example is called to give evidence who shows up? Is the corporate body the entire payroll? Could be thousands forming one person, a mythical Hydra. Does the head get severed from the body with only the CEO showing up on behalf of its dismembered parts. This is only a silly question if the definition of " person " encompasses this bizzare distortion of common sense.

FYI...definition of Hydra:
( water serpent, akin to hydor)the nine- headed killed by Hercules as one of his twelve labours;when any one of its heads is killed off it is replaced with two others.
2. A long S constellation between Cancer and Libra: the largest constellation
Hydras or hydrae:
1. any persistent or ever-increasing evil with many sources and causes
2.any of a family( Hydridae)of small, freshwater, solitary hydroids having a dominant soft-bodied polyp stage.

Corporate person is actually a new species in the human constellation What does one call them, how are they to be recognized?
I propose the classification,HYDROID, with a visible identification tattoo.
Greenpa and I want to sort the mimic from our biological tribe :)

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

Is it just coincidental that the acronym SCOTUS is so tongue-twistingly close to the word scrotum? I think not.

The story is, however, bigger than could be written by that pack of berobed cretins as summarized by Paul Craig Roberts on Counterpunch.

Jim R said...

The justices on the right are strict constructionists when it suits their whim.

Wasn't Congress supposed to have the responsibility to declare war, for example? Not to mention habeas corpus, search & seizuire, etc. ad nauseum.

Weaseldog said...

Ilargi says, "* Our economic problems were triggered by resource contractions;

That urban myth just won't die, will it?"

Can you elaborate?

I'll explain my position. The economic problems we are facing have been building for some time. We might choose to look at the Nixon administration and the USA Oil Peak as one place to see where legislation began to go wrong.

Through the decades, deregulation has allowed our crisis to deepen. We have bubbles building and bursting.

Now these bubbles would likely burst on their own if given enough time. After all even supersaturated solutions will eventually change state if you don't give them a seed to trigger them. But adding the seed, guarantees they will be triggered.

But in such a complex society, something is always going to kick off the bubble bursting.

Look at the 2001 Market bust for instance. The world experienced an oil decline and a corresponding hike in energy prices a little more than a full business quarter before the market exploded.

I was paying attention during this period, and completely sold off all of my market positions in January 2001. I told friends and family to do the same.

Then in 2005 we saw the Peak of conventional oil and maybe Peak Energy.

Since then the markets have become increasingly maladjusted.

I thought it was your position that you can't have healthy economic growth during a resource contraction. How then is it a myth that economies are damaged by resource contraction?

Now it could be simply correlation. But just modeling the trends logically, back in 2000, I figured that during the contraction, the biggest corporations would use their influence and power to buy politicians to give them tribute to keep them afloat.

Even back in 2007, I was writing that the housing boom would end in massive bailouts and the banks would take over the government, just as they've been doing all over the world, since the 1970s, when African nations were seeing their resources stripped away (local resource elimination).

I believe that there is a strong causal relationship between resource availability and economies. If you think this is a myth, I'd love to hear your theory.

scandia said...

Does anyone think that Bernacke will not be confirmed and that Volker will replace him?

Weaseldog said...

Greyzone, yes, I know a little of the history behind personhood of corporations.

Karl Denninger is arguing that the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech for corporations.

I see a flaw in these arguments.

The US Constitution itself, doesn't define corporations, very small rocks, wood or ducks as people. I don't think that anyone can make a case that Jefferson intended 'We the People' to mean anything but flesh and blood, human beings.

I don't see this as a Constitutional issue until we have an amendment to the Constitution that defines people as corporations.

This is simply a bad legal precedent.

Weaseldog said...

Ilargi said... "Frank,

You're either full of it or you have a real bad memory."

That doesn't help me understand why you disagree with him.

Why can't high fuel prices trigger an economic bubble bursting, in much the same way that a gunshot can trigger an avalanche?

High fuel prices lead to higher prices all of the chain. It destroys profit margins. It can force companies to break contracts and go bankrupt. Lead to layoffs. This in turn leads to a chain reaction of supply interruptions... On and on...

Why is it that since the 1970s, economic contractions have followed oil spikes?

Ilargi said...

Really Scandia et al, there's nothing new about corporate personhood. It may be new to you, but that's not the same thing. The Supreme Court decision merely adds the power to finance political campaigns without limits, something that just like that overthrows campaign finance laws that are about a century old, by the way. And those laws were once written for good reasons.

The way personhood for corporations has been defined since 1886 focuses mainly on giving them the same protections under law as actual persons have. Not being obliged to incriminate oneself, that sort of thing.

I've always thought that if they get the upside, they should get it all. Specifically, corporations need to die just like people do. That would solve most problems right there. And corporations actually were forced to expire originally. There were set limits to their lifespan that had to be written into their founding contracts, just as there were limits to how much profit they could make.


Ilargi said...


"Why can't high fuel prices trigger an economic bubble bursting..."

I'm not saying they couldn't, just that they haven't in the present case. I've written about this many times, and I don't feel like going through all of it again right now (and if I did, I wouldn't have the time, sorry).

One of the things i remember doing is taking the amount of petrol used by the average American, adding a dollar to the price of a gallon of it, and see what that costs. $1000 per capita per annum?

Then, look at what the average homeowner has lost in home equity. Which is about $70,000 and counting (Case/Shiller puts loss at 32%, price was $210,000 pre-crisis)).

Obviously, at a 70-to-1 ratio, it's safe to say the world of finance has collapsed independently from oil prices. And you need to add to the equation that oil prices rose largely due to speculation in the world of finance, not supply constraints.

Ergo, oil prices will tumble once again along with all else, simply because the money supply shrinkage will put huge downward pressure on everything under the sun. That doesn't mean oil will be more affordable in real terms, since more people will have much less to spend.

Insanely overvalued real estate, Gramm-Leach-Bliley and derivatives based on the combination of the two have caused the financial mayhem. Oil prices play hardly any role. The nuttiness of finance needs no outside help collapsing.

Because of the financial collapse, peak oil will be pushed years into the future. Although the inability to finance exploration will be a factor as well.

Please don't get me wrong, I'm in with the peak crowd, absolutely. But they are the hammer that sees only nails, and they're wrong in this instance. I've had many a heated debate with Jeffrey Brown -Westexas- on the topic, which was great, cause they made me go out and do the sort of exercise I described above.

The only thing I've always left open is that peak oil causes the finance collapse in a way different from what Jeffrey et al mean. That is, that in 1956 when Hubbert made his speech, the ruling classes paid far more attention then they let on. And decided to bring down the US economy at the time Hubbert saw the global peak (which he did address in that speech, though generally people think he didn't until the 1970's).


Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
JP said...

My wife and I listened to Stoneleigh's interview and we thought it was great overall. During the conclusion, my wife wished that Stoneleigh had talked a bit more about what regular folks must do to prepare so we reviewed the "Building a Lifeboat" primer.

I kind of wish that the interview hadn't gone into the nebulous world of inflation vs. deflation as a monetary phenomenon since this is a difficult subject to grok, particularly without a visual image. Still and all, a good explanation given the time and media constraints.

Was it just me or did the female host sound like she was smoking BC Bud?

Gravity said...

The decreasing value of ambient energy flux density, being expressible in the transformative energy-ratio yield of primary fuel inputs, is definitely correlated to recent events of systemic destabilisation. Assuming vehicular capital embedded in a gravitational continuum does consume energy in transit, there would be a measurable inflection point between a given exessive price of fuel and marginal ability to service financial obligations.

Conversely, decreasing values of ambient energy flux density in a given society necessitate the meta-stable formation of intergenerational financial pyramid schemes to yield sufficient expansionary momentum, at lower boundary thresholds these would subsequently collapse.

Ilargi said...


It's a good idea to ask Stoneleigh to do a separate talk on the lifeboat issue. That way she can go everywhere twice. With the extent to which she's enjoying herself out west, she might be thrilled at the prospect.

We'll look at the whole lecture/radio/audiofile availability issue from here of course, we understand what people would like etc., but it's all a bit new, and as I said already, she should be compensated responsibly, or the whole thing will wither and die.


Amy said...

Weaseldog: spare me the "you don't understand... soon you will think all like us". I have been reading and researching this for as long as many of you. I am not new to this blog at all, just never bother to post. Not new to all of the others either, MarketTicker, Zero Hedge, Mish, Automatic Earth, PatickNet, Salbuchi, Fitts, Calculated Risk, and on and on. I DO understand it all.

" I was making the point that Americans will support the enslavement of Haiti because they will view it through the lense of their own experiences.".... beware of generalizations. "Americans" do not ALL support this at all. Our POLITICS do, our big government does, our banks do, but you are wrong to generalize that all American citizens support it. Just like you would object if an African said Americans all support Iraq, Afghanistan, Goldman Sachs and Obama.

el gallinazo, "contrary opinions?" So this is a sheeple blog where as long as you all think alike and congratulate yourselves on sharing similar views it's ok? I am time consuming? Geeze. Talk about sheeple thinking.

I did not Think Ilgari would pull the posts but when I was looking at them in blogspot, I could not find them all. Only displaying them from the archive on the right on the white TAE page showed them in the main TAE site. It's an awkward setup so for some reason, the posts were not showing but I found them after monkeying around a bit but had already posted to Ilgari.

I. M. Nobody, so I work 8 hours in a nice office. Warm, safe. Far better to toil here than in the fields with a hoe or in a factory. No, I do not see myself as a slave at all. I can make choices. But unless I toil somewhere, I won't eat. Food and shelter doesn't magically fall from the sky. Or wait, are you a communist/Socialist? How much banks and the economy has made those basics unaffordable and so forth is a parallel issue but does not erase the fact that I gotta work if I want to eat and that does not make me a slave. How hard I choose to work and how much crap I buy or live beyond my means is also a personal decision.

Ahimsa : "I suspect Amy must be ignorant of topics discussed at TAE and/or in denial regarding her/our predicament. Of course, there is the possibility that Amy is not sincere..."

That's what you come up with? Please. I thought this blog had a higher caliber of thinkers. And what you posted from Amy Goodman, old news to me. Spend some time on Haitian websites and open FaceBook pages. You will also find massive local/international grass roots organization. People thousands of miles away helping, mobilizing help. And it's on MSM if you look hard enough.

Please you all, just go about your merry sheeple ways and continue your group think. Clearly, you all prefer an environment where you are all stroking each other's back. This is looking a bit too much like Alex Jones' Prison Planet commentary (albeit without the swearing and blatant racism).

TAE Summary said it well" * If you disagree with I and S then reading TAE is a waste of time; Only the insincere disagree with I and S; My blog or the high blog Sounds a bit like a police state to me. How Ironic.

Ilargi said...

Come on, Amy-who-can't-spell-to-save-his/her-life, you sound like you could do much better than run of the mill. Why so shy? Why hide behind big emptiness? Need a cuddle?

Weaseldog said...

Ilargi said, "Obviously, at a 70-to-1 ratio, it's safe to say the world of finance has collapsed independently from oil prices. And you need to add to the equation that oil prices rose largely due to speculation in the world of finance, not supply constraints."

Maybe, but that's a bit like saying that because an avalanche releases more energy than a stick of dynamite, a stick of dynamite doesn't have enough energy to trigger an avalanche. Further, we know that a misstep by a hiker can cause an avalanche, but this doesn't disprove the idea that dynamite can trigger them.

Sure it would collapse anyway, but we have a number of good historical examples of crashes that followed oil shortages.

Today, the economic system is so distorted and disconnected from our resource base that other things are more likely to take it down. But next time oil production takes a nosedive, i believe we'll see another economic crash follow it.

Ilargi said, "Ergo, oil prices will tumble once again along with all else, simply because the money supply shrinkage will put huge downward pressure on everything under the sun. That doesn't mean oil will be more affordable in real terms, since more people will have much less to spend."

I agree with this. I've been writing about this for more than ten years.

"Insanely overvalued real estate, Gramm-Leach-Bliley and derivatives based on the combination of the two have caused the financial mayhem. Oil prices play hardly any role. The nuttiness of finance needs no outside help collapsing."

You misunderstand my argument, that shocks produced by rapid increases in fuel prices provide a trigger for corrections. I never argued that they are the cause of the financial instability.

"Because of the financial collapse, peak oil will be pushed years into the future. Although the inability to finance exploration will be a factor as well."

I wasn't aware that you believe this. I don't believe there is any reason to believe that in the future, we'll have a sustained period of conventional oil production growth that will exceed the 2005 levels.

As we disagree on this, it's likely we won't be able to reconcile disagreements for now.

Thank you for your explanation.

JP said...


Point taken regarding compensation. Personally, I think that she ought to charge a fee for speaking. My cheque is in the mail for the TAE fund. :)

Personally, I would love it if Stoneleigh did a talk in the Ottawa area.

Weaseldog said...

Amy said, ""I was making the point that Americans will support the enslavement of Haiti because they will view it through the lense of their own experiences.".... beware of generalizations. "Americans" do not ALL support this at all. Our POLITICS do, our big government does, our banks do, but you are wrong to generalize that all American citizens support it. Just like you would object if an African said Americans all support Iraq, Afghanistan, Goldman Sachs and Obama."

Ok, so there are dissenters. Big deal. The Gov doesn't care. There isn't a majority who would miss an episode of American Idol, to force the Gov to change course.

There won't be a critical mass of Americans that will fight to solve Haiti's problems, after this crisis has been forgotten by the media.

I think it's entirely appropriate to discuss my fellow Americans as a group, as described by what they will do as a national entity. Because it reflects what they actually do. Sure there will be dissenters. But they don't lead the herd.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gravity said...

If expressible political opinions solely concern maximizing profit, corporate entities enjoying enhanced freedom of advertisement, being legally obliged to only express profitable opinions, remain logically and legally incapable of moral differentiation in all non-economic discourse, having no valid opinions on any cultural or social issues which cannot be monetised or commercialised within the sovereign boundaries of national politics, and which are not already covered by collateral suffrage.

Mike said...

I would love the opportunity to hear last nights Stoneleigh show as I was out when it aired.

Any chance a copy could be posted with an appropriate paypal donation of course..

I am a big fan of the Podcast format (Financial Sense w/Jim P. comes to mind), and although I do not subscribe to any paid subscription ones, I would certainly make that exception for a weekly TAE podcast with I&S and guests...

Unknown said...

Question about OTC-derivatives:

When most people discuss OTC-derivatives, they are talking about CDS constracts.

Do OTC derivatives also include:

1) interest rate swap contracts
2) currency swap contracts
3) CDO tranches built from MBS

Ken said...

Thank you and we hope next time you will be able to stay longer in Victoria, have a safe trip.
Ken & Patti

Bigelow said...

Re: Corporate rule

“Despite the issue being raised in arguments, the Justices offered no written opinion on the question of whether corporations should be considered "persons" and enjoy the protections of the 14th Amendment. The Court reporter's notes, however, quoted Chief Justice Waite declaring that, "We all are of the opinion" that the 14th Amendment applies to corporations.

Many people (rightfully) are outraged that a Court reporter could turn the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment on their heads, which effectively is what occured once Santa Clara was cited as precedent in subsequent cases. However, the fact that the Justices never issued an opinion on "corporate personhood" lost its legal significance once they cited the case.” SANTA CLARA COUNTY v. SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY

“John Chandler Bancroft Davis enjoyed a long and prolific career as a diplomat, jurist, and legal historian. ...” ””

“…actually the court did not rule that corporations were persons, but they have been claiming that ever since then because the clerk of the court, John Chandler Bancroft Davis, former President of the Newburg and New York railroad, wrote into a head note – the commentary on the case – which has no legal standing, a quote from the chief justice who had since died, he was dying of congestive heart failure during the year the proceedings happened, he died the next year. This was published two years later. He wrote that the chief justice said, “a corporation is a person and therefore entitled to protection under the 14th amendment.” When nobody knows if the chief justice said that. Even if he did, it doesn’t matter. It’s not the case. ... For more detail see Thom’s book “Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights”” Transcript: Thom’s Corporate Personhood rant

The Supreme Court’s lowly Clerk of Court, (a former United States diplomat, railroad lawyer and railroad president) must have been confused and made a mistake writing the reference notes for other lawyers regarding the opinion on the Santa Clara case and noted in favor of corporate rights for the same railroads who had unsuccessfully sought additional corporate rights via multiple court appeals over decades. Just a coincidence.

Anonymous said...

I'm no expert on these matters but we were always taught that the entire Caribbean is considered the backyard of the USA and is thus a naval vulnerability. Cuba, Jamaica and Hispaniola sits on important shipping routes for the Panama Canal -- the Jamaica Channel, the Windward Passage, the Cayman Trench and the Mona Passage. The USA even annexed a Haitian island Navassa in the Jamaica Channel.

The USA is still a naval power and the Monroe Doctrine still stands so there is no reason to believe their interests have changed.

Additionally, there is a trade route of guns and drugs between Haiti and Jamaica. Both islands are transhipment points for illegal drugs to N. America and Europe.

Maybe someone can come up with a hypothesis from these facts.

Amy said...

"There won't be a critical mass of Americans that will fight to solve Haiti's problems, after this crisis has been forgotten by the media."

Tell me, do you think TAE is essential to some people's lives? Critical? Do you think it, along with the other economic blogs, play a powerful role in combating MSM and propoganda?

If so, then you are not validating your own experience here. The critical masses in general might not be educating themselves on the economy, are not changing, are not even aware and cannot even understand how money and economy works. For the latter, that's understandable as it's incredibly complex with people who do get it not even able to agree on fundamentals. But if you are separating yourself from the masses because you read, educate yourself, post here and are preparing for doomsday, then you ARE important and you can play a role in change. The masses as a generalization may never. But YOU can. And then you talk to someone else and someone else and soon, change can happen.

And of those masses, speaking of the unemployed and foreclosed upon and homeless.. you think they don't get it? They may not be a part of TAE group think but they get what is going on.

There are people in Haiti and the US who will work their bones off to help that country. No, the critical masses won't, but don't underestimate the power of the other people who are lumped in there but just like you with the economy, aren't asleep at the wheel.

I have read on many a website in the past week, from obscure blogs to mainstream news that even people with no jobs, going through foreclosure and facing incredible financial problems still finding they have to give and care.

That's hope. Maybe it is resonating for people even more what it's like to loose everything' may be more than ever today, people feel compassion and understanding. Maybe far more people than you give credit are saying, "There but for the grace of god, go I." The more people feel that in this country, the more hope we have for change, for people to appreciate what we have, to stop squandering....

Amy said...

Ilgari: "Come on, Amy-who-can't-spell-to-save-his/her-life, you sound like you could do much better than run of the mill. Why so shy? Why hide behind big emptiness? Need a cuddle?"

Huh? Wow. You have just shown your caliber as well. My spelling is fine. Spare the insults. Sorry I am not using spell checker but I have other things to do than go over my typing with a fine tooth and comb. If this is your response as a blogger, no wonder your followers are as they are.

Top Hat Cat said...

The whole concept of corporate person-hood, which had it's start in the late 19th century, I regard as the legal fruition of the Mary Wollstonecraft's Frankenstein.

Fictionally sewing together inanimate objects to make a pseudo life form was successfully conceived later that century in the non-fiction legal realm with the Bad Seed precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court and it's clever mischievous clerk scribbling in the margins.

A Monster was born.

That monster was a mere baby at the beginning of the 20th century. At the beginning of the 21th century, it has evolved in scope and size into a planetary life extinguishing Paradise Lost version of Milton's Beelzebub, second only to Satan.

We have no laws anymore except for 'the little people' laws. The faux life form known as the Corporation is above law, any law, at this point. Having no body, it is Immortal and cannot be killed by ordinary means.

The Supreme Clowns, the third leg of the U.S. governing tripod (no, it's not a new form of iPod), have been neutered so throughly as a moral authority,that any pronouncements coming from them only sound like puppet show chin music.

The Supreme Clowns are about as relevant as the Congress or a bad reality TV variety show. Song & Dance, some seltzer down your pants.

Any 'decisions' coming out of their mouths were dictated to them from the corporate Doctor Blankenfein doing Satan's work.

The 'Law' itself is an abstraction, a body-less phantom at best, only brought to Life by the action of real humans.

Corporations have subsumed the Law, lock, stock and barrel.

David Addington, Darth Cheney’s Beelzebub assistant, had this soundbite which sums up CLFP (Corporate Life Force Philosophy):

“We’re going to push and push and push until some larger force makes us stop.”

Ilargi said...


You can't spell my name.

Spare me the rest.

Zaphod said...

It's time for a clear amendment stating that corporations are not people, and delineating their limits and responsibilities.

VK said...

Aah! A bear's delight. Markets tanking for 3 straight days. I feel like I'm back in 2008!

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

Where would we be without Gravity? Grabbing clumps of grass and hanging on for dear life I tell ya.


I commend you for offering Amy a cuddle. Maybe she does need one,but first let us acknowledge her contributions here.

She has, for instance, clarified the matter, which has long been debated, as to whether working in a nice warm safe office is better than being a hoer or chained to a drop forge in a smelly hot or cold factory. Good to know. We have also learned that only the perpetually indecisive can be slaves. People, these be good things to know. Thank you Amy.


Am I a communist or socialist? Back when I spent that year on Ascension, I had a beer with a British person, who was either there for the fuel depot construction or the BBC propaganda transmitter site, I don't remember which. This British person very forcefully warned me and my colleague that we should never join anything. He made it sound like such wise advise that I have followed it as I best I could. Consequently, I have denied myself the opportunity to find out if I might be a socialist and of course we aren't even allowed to have a communist party, so no way to find out about that. As I mentioned a couple of days ago, I was born with Republicanism, but I got better.

One little quibble with your post though. Actually, if one of those food laden aid planes were to belly in on a soft field, one could say that food and shelter had fallen from the sky.

Have a good weekend.

Punxsutawney said...

Another bad day in the stock market today. Looks like we are now below begining of the month valuations.

Still too soon to say if the 2009 rally is done for.

scandia said...

VK. just had a look at the markets. Yikes! Especially Asia
How many banks will close to-day I wonder?
Eagar to see how the markets open on Monday!

@ Amy, for the record, I didn't think reading you was a waste of time. Nor do I think a spelling mistake should disqualify what one is saying.
Also , for the record, I have learned much and matured mentally and emotionally from I&S and from all posters. We are not always with the same grounding in the field of finance ( or the many fields touched upon here).

Weaseldog said...

amy said..."Tell me, do you think TAE is essential to some people's lives? Critical? Do you think it, along with the other economic blogs, play a powerful role in combating MSM and propoganda?"

No, not really.

Helpful yes. But not critical.

No, I don't think it plays a powerful role in combating the MSM and Propaganda.

I'm not attempting to belittle the efforts of Stoneleigh and Ilargi. I am thankful that they are hosting this blog.

But we are self selected group. Most of us are here because we share common interests and concerns already.

We aren't the souls being fought over. We've already picked a side.

Each of us as individuals play the role of combating the MSM in our daily lives.

And sure there will be some folks that will continue to work to alleviate the suffering in Haiti. The problem though is bigger than what they can handle. It's a problem of natural law. You can't have an exponentially growing population, living off of a mostly fixed resource base.

As we slide down the post peak curve, the resources available to Haiti will diminish and become more expensive.

If you really want to buy the island time, then only a mass exodus will do. Move 1.5 million of the inhabitants to some other place.

VK said...

@ scandia

"Blue chips lose 552 points over past three days, capping their worst week since February 2009."

Asia more or less follows the US, apart from China whose market is out sync and out of tune with the rest.

There's only one stock market in the world that counts IMO, that's the US one as the US is the focal point of the world's economic and financial systems.

The rest can pretend about the rise of the BRIC and all that jazz but when the US pied piper comes to play, it will hypnotize the rest. But I have to say, 552 points in 3 days is pretty big, reminds me of 2008 really.

I was watching CNBC just to get the reactions of the talking heads. They tried to remain optimistic but they look shaken. At DOW 5,000 I'm going to party with the bears. At DOW 500 I'll be preparing for the end game I guess.

VK said...

The S&P gave up around 2+ months of consolidation and gain in 3 days...

Please dust off your DOW 10,000 hats and take out your party like it's 1999 t-shirts.

Frank said...


"Because of the financial collapse, peak oil will be pushed years into the future. Although the inability to finance exploration will be a factor as well."

I wasn't aware that you believe this. I don't believe there is any reason to believe that in the future, we'll have a sustained period of conventional oil production growth that will exceed the 2005 levels.

I hope that what Ilargi is saying is that he expects demand for oil to stay below production capacity for an extended period of time, not that the 2005-08 plateau level will be exceeded.

I agree this is not what 'peak oil' actually means, but it is at least plausible. If he actually expects production to ever exceed July of '08 by any nontrivial amount, then I too will be seriously concerned.

@Climate people. Ilargi and I live a few hundred miles/clicks apart, in northeastern North America. Both of us are from areas that from European settlement to the turn of the millennium had normal winter lows lower than -20F/-30C which turns out to be the cutoff for a great number of perennial plants.

I am now below that line. Ilargi may or may not be, but if not, he will be soon. I have three more frost-free weeks than I did in 1990. That makes up for a lot of rain.

ogardener said...

Blogger I. M. Nobody said...

A hoer?

I'm sorry but that was funny.

Amy said...

weaseldog.... critical not necessarily as life and death but critical to the "survival" of many people. I have been on practically since the day he started that blog. He was one of the first ones tackling the housing market. I watched the articles he posted from obscure blogs and then gradually the move to mainstream to becoming a tsunami on MSM. Lots of others were there... so I am sure thousands, probably millions had a head's up on the issue before it hit MSM and people's lives. From his blog, I URGED/BEGGED my dad to sell a property he had, saying real estate would tank. Dad said RE never really does. I argued, explained, etc, etc. I am sure his blog and the ones that subsequently sprang up helped a lot of people by providing essential information that people could not get anywhere else. I guess I meant it in that context. Reading respectful (for the most part), well thought out arguments and perspectives will "save" a lot more people than you think. Hysteria, the Alex Jones approach, won't. It's alienating. So while you may not see a massive shift, you can see it on the microscopic level. People are doing that here, today on this blog asking how to prepare....

How much of Haitian history do you know? Do you know it was one of the richest producing islands in the west (sadly under slavery)? And that when the slaves rose against the French and sought emancipation, the French destroyed hundreds of plantations and the countries wealth evaporated? That the MASSIVE debt the French imposed on Haiti crippled it for centuries? So in a sense, it is, you are right, Haiti is the poster child for massive debt and it's affect on a nation.

It's not just peak this and peak that that has brought Haiti to where it is today. Rather it's the colonial powers that ruled it, the racist regimes of Europe and racism in general that has brought Haiti to where it is more than anything else that could have contributed. And of course, the US then played it's role in all this.(Haitian history grossly summarized)

Ilargi, apologize for spelling your name wrong. Relax. I have caught a few grammar mistakes and typos before in your posts.

I. M. Nobody ... you are SOooo cute. Can I cuddle YOU?

Starcade said...

Three things to keep an eye on:

1) Bernake is toast.

2) GS is down nearly $14 the last two days.

3) The stock market is heading south in a hurry.

And it all started with that special election in Mass. Could TPTB be executing their Plan X?

Could 2/20/2010 be not so much a pipedream of some mathematical manipulators now?

Starcade said...

Snuffy: My roommate has it right. USA Incorporated.

Or, better, "In God We Trust Incorporated" (taking from Jello Biafra)

To which I quickly mumble "All Others Pay Cash".

Yesterday's ruling was devastating to any real belief that going to the polls even matters anymore.

This is why I rail against the sheep and things like "American Idol" -- that rigged farce (which would be off the air, and everyone on it jailed, if we enforced the damn laws in this country) is perfectly indicative of why we are about to go back to the 1800's, real quickfast.

Bigelow said...

“In fact, to this day there has been no Supreme Court ruling that could explain why a corporation - with its ability to continue operating forever, a legal agreement that can't be put in jail and doesn't need fresh water to drink or clean air to breathe - should be granted the same Constitutional rights our Founders explicitly fought for, died for, and granted to the very mortal human beings who are citizens of the United States, to protect them against the perils of imprisonment and suppression they'd experienced under a despot king.”
Link Here if you would like to read chapter 6 "The Deciding Moment" of Thom Hartmann’s "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights"

Starcade said...

IM Nobody: Kinda like what I sometimes see the acronym POTUS (President of the United States) as: Piece of the Ultimate Sh*t.

Stoneleigh: I think the chaos is beginning. Right about a month after Christmas. The election in Massachusetts established the natives are restless, so the rats are beginning to desert the sinking ship, causing it to sink even faster.

Bernake is absolute toast. And I think that is also getting even a few more rats to desert.

The SCOTUS ruling basically means that a lot of these companies now have to get liquid so they can buy their share of Congress over the next few months.

I'm guessing, frankly, that Bernake and his cronies have a "Plan X", and it just went into effect, knowing that Bernake is gone and the demand of the people is for the eventual breakup of the entire US banking system (whether the latter realize it or not!).

Bigelow said...


Looks to me like another month till the U.S. stock market lows, then that sideways chop takes over again.

scandia said...

@ Cecelia...thanks for the information on sea lanes. Interesting. Lots of interested parties invested in the outcome...

@ Ilargi or anyone else...I can't figure out how the reported Russian purchase of Cdn dollars will impact us. If credit is contracting then doesn't a reducing supply of hard currency cause further deflation on Main St? Same for Australia.

Aldabra said...

I liked the Amsterdam video. I've been out this week photographing empty shops in the city centre in Cambridge, UK. It's at

$$$Dollar$$$ said...

VK Prechter is seeing the DOW bottom out somewhere around 500, with the DOW at 1000 at the end of 2011. Good times.

Anonymous said...


My wife and I are thinking the same thing. I am an Oregon resident and all corporations are defined at the state level, so the question is how to go about it. I figure an initiative to change our constitution is the most effective. The question is how to write it.

I would like it to say:
Corporations are entities allowed by the state to enable the creative works of citizens.
There is no profit motive intrinsically, but that that may be defined and determined by the corporate charter.
Crimes committed by the corporation result in its dissolution and forfeiture of its assets to the state.
What else? How to word it?

As a second initiative I would like to limit all political speech to those who can vote. If you can't vote in an election you cannot contribute (financially) to an election.

carpe diem said...


My spelling is perfect so get off my back!


el gallinazo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
jal said...

So far for 2010, 9 banks failed.

Columbia River Bank The Dalles OR 22469 January 22, 2010
Evergreen Bank Seattle WA 20501 January 22, 2010
Charter Bank Santa Fe NM 32498 January 22, 2010
Bank of Leeton Leeton MO 8265 January 22, 2010
Premier American Bank Miami FL 57147 January 22, 2010
Barnes Banking Company Kaysville UT 1252 January 15,
St. Stephen State Bank St. Stephen MN 17522 January 15, 2010
Town Community Bank & Trust Antioch IL 34705 January 15, 2010
Horizon Bank Bellingham WA 22977 January 8, 2010

Stoneleigh did a very good presentation and a very good radio interview.

snuffy said...

Its all boiling down to a matter of how much inertia,how much more the markets will stand,before it starts to auger in "el permenente".

I am hoping for a couple of more years...I have things I want to get in a sailboat named "Plan b}...if it gets too strange at the house...

Ah well,Things wont wait on me.


Jim R said...

so you're saying the hand-counters were stuffing the box for Coakley, but failed to overwhelm the machine, or that the machines are rigged for Brown, or that presumably smaller hand-count jurisdictions are more liberal than cities

No, what I meant to suggest was that the machine-count jurisdictions were late reporting because the Republicans' dogs had a hard time working the touch screens with their paws, resulting in long queues and delays.

Though presumably the least-bad lizard won. I would have been hard put to vote for either of them.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

Amy said...

I. M. Nobody ... you are SOooo cute. Can I cuddle YOU?

Amy, you wouldn't believe how much I would like that. But no matter what THEY say, I'm a stand up guy (quote from a line by James Caan in a movie I can't remember anymore). So, I have to tell you that you would probably be disappointed. They tell me I'm not ugly, but cute, ehh. In addition to that I'm old and afflicted with one of god's-own really weird diseases. But, most critically, I assume we are a long away apart. Yes, I am smart enough to know you were probably being insincere about the cuddle offer. Sadly, I am not.

BTW, I liked your last post @5:35, irrespective of the cuddle offer. Passion is good, but you must use it wisely. Unwise use of passion can destroy worlds. The thing is, you have given me some of my best inspiration lately, but don't feel obligated to continue irritating the crowd just so I can feed my feeble attempts to be humorous. You know me as I.M.Nobody, but the real name is Foole.

One more thing though, I wrote about it before and I am serious. I am completely down with pejorative terms for human kind, but what the heck did a sheep ever do to you?


Many thanks. It's not easy trying to be humorous, it you don't know if anybody's laughing. I'm not quite sure if I've got Amy or not. But, you are in truly top notch company, as the only other person that has issued a LOL is none other that the exceptionally noteworthy, Stoneleigh. Good on you.

@carpe diem said...


Not bad, not bad at all. If you weren't, as best I can recall, on the other side of the world I'd buy you a nice dinner and wine just to see if you have any more of that. :)

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


From what I've heard and read, both lizards were so bad, there should have been a None Of The Above option on the ballot. Here's what Letterman had to say, in case anyone missed it.

Letterman Welcomes Senator-Elect Brown To The National Stage

BTW, I believe you are the first to pick up on the lizard meme. Good on you. All praise to Steve Laudig and Douglas Adams.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

I highly recommend reading The Greater Threat, from Michael Panzner's blog.

carpe diem said...

to I.M. Nobody,

I'm at the top of the swiss alp just to the left of the one on the right practising my yodeling. I'm hoping it will come in handy when TSHTF (REALLY hits the fan).
We're on for wine and dinner. My libido has been on vacation for a couple of years so no great expectations in that department.

; D

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
VK said...

@ Bigelow

No real choppy trading in Wave C, what we can expect from my little reading into the topic are powerful rallies that can last a month or so (max two months), nothing like the wave B rally though that went on for 10 months. The general trend will be down and by a lot.90% plus.

I'm going to be calling for DOW 2,000 by 2011. Dow 500 or less will come after a rally back to 3,500 or 4,000 even. Some analysts are calling for DOW ZERO! If that happens, the US as a state is pretty much toast, so I hope that doesn't happen as the world would be toast too.

The DOW at 500 ensures some sort of state and Government. Remember during GD1 nominal GDP fell 46% from peak to trough, given debt burdens are much, much higher, I would expect maybe a 75% decline in nominal GDP. In a deflationary environment the real GDP decline would be higher.

Can you imagine the Chinese economy contracting by 50% or more? It's so far out, I'm not sure I can. If it happens, the world will be something to behold. Or not.

Hombre said...

Greyzone 3:42 - Re: your link...
Charts save a lot of words and make a point!
The chart showing debt./GDP is easy to comprehend (and should shock many), However I was looking for a time line in the upper chart and without it had some trouble "getting it."
Maybe you or Ilargi could shed some light on it in next post... or here?

Scandia - Greetings from another "former" Quaker. I hopped out of all my boxes some time ago. But still respect the "plain people" very much.

scandia said...

@ Coyote...I,too, still respect my former Quaker Meeting.
Just learned from them that there are no Quakers " on the ground " in Haiti. Many are donating to Drs Without Borders.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
VK said...

@ Tero

Joseph Tainter - The collapse of complex societies.

The point has been reached where the marginal benefits of society are declining sharply while the marginal costs are going up.

A sample view of these;

Hunter gatherer societies got a 10:1 EROEI ratio from their activities. It has been thought that modern civilization needs around a 20:1 EROEI to be carry on with a 7:1 EROEI being the lower threshold. Solar and Wind account for 0.1% or so of US energy output and can't be scaled up in time. Even if they are, we have serious grid issues that Stoneleigh knows much more about. As oil production declines, we simply can't sustain civilization as present.

Some people say Nuclear, well we'd need to build a new nuclear power plant of 1000 MW every 2.8 days for the next 20 years to replace oil consumption globally. If we are looking for 'growth' of 2% in energy use, than we'd need a new plant every 1.5 days or so.

Healthcare costs constituted around 1% of GDP costs in the early 1900's. Now it's nearing 17%. While the rise in life expectancy was garnered early on, through better hygiene and reduced child mortality the costs continue to rise rapidly.

R&D Costs continue to shoot up while the benefits can be said to be negligible for eg I've been using Windows XP for 5-6 years now and I don't see any need to upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 for example. Yet to produce the software require a truckload of resources and intellectual capital.

Complexity has costs. As complexity increases, we require ever rising inputs of energy, human capital, resources etc. We must run faster and faster just to stay even.

Eventually a point is reached where the costs are far too high for the benefits obtained and society begins to collapse - by that I mean a decline in complexity. Normally societies begin serious declines 20 years after their peak.

The naughties produced no job gains as the population rose by 15 Mn I believe and the worst stock returns since the last 2 centuries.

Also we'll have shortages of sulphuric acid as oil production declines as H2SO4 is a vital component of manufacturing and purifying metals. To replace 800 million cars that run on liquid fuels with electric versions and in the midst of a deflation, falling purchasing power, ever lowering EROEI and a shortage of rare earth metals is going to be quite a stretch.

Complexity carries costs. As the costs outweigh the benefits, societies collapse. This time the collapse will be global given the interconnected nature of the world - globalization. Finance networks will break down globally and thus access to global credit will be limited, resulting in shortages and pretty much chaos.

Yes informal networks can be setup but these will be local.

M said...

I wonder how much more political advertising can be absorbed by the citizenry. And if the Corporations buy even greater amounts of political ads that does not mean others can not elevate the quality and effectiveness of their own ads. In other words, there is still a lot of room for the incisive message to be delivered

The bottom line remains: Americans are still in denial regarding the future of the economy. In a country of burgeoning prosperity and affluence, devious and duplicitous political ads are more able to manipulate the obese lethargy of an apathetic and politically illiterate electorate. But another school is opening it’s doors for the population of America and there is no greater teacher than Hard Knocks University. The flowery ornament of Corporate influence may have some impact on those not yet adversely affected, but how well will the same old Corporate message sell to the down and out parents struggling to provide a roof over their children’s heads and food on the table?

As for the tea-baggers still delusional in their belief of ‘American Exceptionalism’ ethos, they will also reap a bitter and ironical fruit. Sent packing in a different variation of Manifest Destiny, I wonder how silly and foolish their anti-health care reform vitriol will feel when their own homes are foreclosed upon and the locks changed because they could not pay their medical bills. The Bush/GOP bankruptcy bill never overturned as promised by the Dems and an emboldened health care insurance industry rampaging with impunity as a result of political gridlock will provide a very bitter harvest indeed.

And for those market players espousing Libertarian purity, how good will Mish’s call for privatized prisons feel when their own offspring are caught in the jaws of the Manufacture A Criminal profit industry?

What a grand societal vision, eviscerate every union member and quality paying job while promoting a diabolical industry whose very profit margins depend on the creation of more criminals. And oh, by the way, do I have a good market tip for you. An increasingly desperate working class, sacrificed on the “by-the-bootstrap” plate of right-wing self-reliance mythology as a big fat meal ticket for those holding stocks in the for-profit-prison- industry.

But this is what a country comes to when the philistine degenerates abolish any and every form of the arts and humanities in their utilitarian blitzkrieg. We are left with, to echo Dickens, pedestrian market players peddling “ the Good Samaritan was a bad economist” mantra.

And we are also left with the void filled by the wretched vision of the cyber market Philosopher King calling for the ‘affordable prison guard’ to add even greater profitability and incentive to the for-profit-prison-industry.

Buy your stocks now--wink,wink. Plenty of minimum wage prison guard jobs on the horizon. Somebody is going to have man the prisons filled the unemployed relative who succumbed to a moment of economic desperation.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
ogardener said...

The China-Google dispute
US plans to harness Internet to its hegemonic goals
By Alex Lantier
23 January 2010

"US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's January 21 speech on internet freedom marks a major escalation of Sino-American tensions. Amid a censorship dispute between China and the search engine firm Google, Clinton unveiled a global policy of Internet-driven regime-change, under the guise of freedom of speech."

The hypocrisy is blinding.

Hombre said...

Greyzone... cont: I should have said... relative to the blue line.?

I get that debt/GDP at or near 90% is a in/de-flationary threshold.

Greenpa said...

VK - "The point has been reached where the marginal benefits of society are declining sharply while the marginal costs are going up."

I'd assume you're familiar with Doug Adams' "Shoe Event Horizon"?

Turns out it was actually based on a real world; my friends the Antarean anthropologists tell me. It's something they see on a regular basis.

As soon as a civilization reaches the level of complexity which allows them to get into space- that same complexity will tend to become a positive feedback loop- and any biologist can assure you than 100% of closed loop positive feedback situations are 100% lethal.

Our own space program is a wonderful example; remember the $400 hammer? Corruption aside, a good bit of that cost was the real expense of "verification" - a) that the hammer was functional; b) that the hammer actually exists at x location, c) that the hammer was needed), d) that the hammer was used) e) that the hammer actually meets design specs for this specific case... and THEN- all those verifications have to be done over; by Agency 2, because they have proven they can't entirely believe the reports (on paper, in quadruplicate) of Agency 1. Then they have to be done again, by the Oversight agency.

We are on the verge here, on Earth, of reaching our own "Absolute Verification Event Horizon"; which includes such things as the forms you must now sign when you go to see your doctor about a cut thumb. Privacy policy notification; permission to bill insurer, statement of responsibility for payment, notice of legal non-liability... etc.

We're very close to the Event Horizon, where it becomes impossible for anyone to do anything except fill out, and forward, forms; informing senders you received the information, filing your copy, sending one copy to originator, another to next recipient, one to legal;

then another set confirming not the information, but the fact the form was processed, for all parties; then processing the receipts for both forms, and sending receipts for the receipts; then filing in quintuplicate the annual list of all such forms and receipts processed to all, plus one for the archivists...

We're very close. It's yet another reason why other Galactic civilizations refuse to visit us in the open; this kind of thing is highly contagious, and if they've survived it once, they don't want to risk letting it happen again.

Civilizations that manage to work through it, incidentally, are about 1 in 2,248; and uniformly they refuse to share how. "It won't help YOU," they say, "and we're not taking any chances on it backfiring if we tell."

Always look on the bright side of life.

La, lala lala la.


Gravity said...

The concept of citizenship, when properly defined, should reveal most clearly why corporate persons are logically incapable of political speech, and can only engage in advertisement or marketing. All incorporated expressions of speech are legally defined as profit-based marketing.
The degrees of political expression afforded to the citizenry are not applicable to composite structures of economic producers or consumers, which can only express differentiated values through trade, and not political discourse. Corporations, even when attaining legal personhood, cannot be moral actors defined within a sovereign political boundary and can therefore not attain citizenship or partake of any particular right afforded only to citizens.

Also, any resource constraints whatsoever, including water and phosphorus, would show up in decline of ambient energy flux density, though the concept is not particularly usable in economic calculations, as it contradicts pricing mechanisms in recursive resources.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...

@carpe diem,

Wine and dinner it is. From now on, if anyone should ask, are you seeing someone?, I can say no, but I have a date I think will be a lot of fun. :)

I'd prefer to be asking this across a table at a cozy restaurant, but what is the premise for yodeling being a survival skill?

jal said...

Re: EROEI (Energy Returned on Energy Invested)
is the ratio of the amount of usable energy acquired from a particular energy resource to the amount of energy expended to obtain that energy resource. When the EROEI of a resource is equal to or lower than 1, that energy source becomes an "energy sink", and can no longer be used as a primary source of energy.

Since before recorded history there has been governments and civil servants.
Governments have always found ways of obtaining surplus individual production or accumulations to accomplish what would be considered “energy sinks”.
The worst “energy sink” that I can think of is “military”.
Think of the present disaster of Haiti. The government had their “white house”. The church had their cathedral.

Yes, the surplus was found from the “people”.

Historically, surpluses were found to build palaces, pyramids, and temples and send men to the moon.
In the future, there will always be surpluses that can be directed to some kind of lavish center.

We have a long way to go before we reach the general conditions of Haiti.

We have a long way to go before ending all “energy sink”.

VK said...

Hi Tero,

I see the main problem as being political. If we really want to see change, well that involves sacrifice and a lot of it. A change in ideology as well to what I call survival socialism. Capitalism works wonderfully well on an infinite planet with infinite resources. And yes I do enjoy the perks of capitalism but not for long :(

If you want to 'solve' the financial crisis, the banks must be allowed to fail now. The US Govt must educate it's populace and provide sufficient food, medicine and security for two years or so. To allow the country to reboot essentially.

If one wants to 'solve' climate change, overconsumption must be tackled. 70% income tax? create an energy tax on energy used.

People must be willing to sacrifice their current lifestyles. Yes we are headed for a brick wall but as Totoneila says on TOD, we must optimize our descent/ die-off. And that means a massive political and cultural change.

So is it still possible to save lives and a functioning society? YES, but it will be nothing like the one we currently have and it would involve far less of going to the mall, eating double cheeseburgers and H1 Hummers.

In the present economic and political system, we are headed for a really, really bad impact. Hopefully we have some sort of mitigating negative feedback loops but from my readings I can't honestly think of one society that has chosen to reduce it's living standards willingly for the sake of others or for themselves. They usually decline to that point and much worse. Though such a case if found would be really nice to learn off, a society that leaves the earth as they found it.

Ruben said...


It is time for you to re-watch the movie Brazil.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


AWESOME! I must now spin my chair around to the north, get up and genuflect. Please keep us updated on what Antareans are willing to tell us. One of our biggest losses with the passing of Kurt Vonnegut was loss of contact with the Tralfamidorians. Now them people is wise.

Let me add a little to your example of space program Event Horizons. I was a technician on something called Apollo Launch Data System. We processed telemetry data from the bird and transmitted data samples it to Control Centers. Plus we recorded the data on mag tape. Every piece of equipment was duplicated for operational redundancy. Loosing data during a launch was not an option.

Enormous sums must have been spent designing, building and verifying everything. And yet, when the telemetry interface equipment was cabled to the receivers, a lot of the magic smoke that makes electronic devices work escaped. This lead to a discovery of large voltage differences in the multiple electrical ground circuits in the building.

Once operational, little problems appeared that might have had unfortunate consequences. One that a colleague and myself solved after many evenings of testing and brainstorming turned out to be a missing signal wire in a tape drive interface unit. How could redundant verification have missed that? Well, that wire did not appear in any of the voluminous documentation at our disposal. Putting men on the moon wasn't just difficult and expensive, it was little short of a miracle.


Can't imagine why you failed to point out that, per Hoffstadter, to understand recursive resources we would first have to understand recursive resources.


Hard Knocks University? isn't that just across town from my alma mater, Whassamatta U? :)

mikel paul said...

Ilargi..i apologize that my personal brain matter doesn't seem to be able to digest much of your good eats but do believe I do have some good sense regardless.
Seems to me that there is a real possibility that this whole economic branch clamity issue, however honest in its scope of potentials, is void of the need for a serious acceptance that we have plainly and simply proven how inept we are at using the opposing thumbs and the intelligence we claim to have for anything that would benefit humanity.

I find it ironic, that the much lauded 'individual right' to succeed conveniently ignores our memory that we, as physical beings begin this life having been given it by birth, conceived by parents who were, like us conceived by theirs. Many of us living now have or will conceive our followers likewise.

This historical precedent seems nowhere to be found in the discussion of our system.

It is not that I find the rampant global economic greed issues unimportant or that I think it is entirely possible that the few are raping the many (I think both are very plausible), but I find it amazing that we are suprised at all by any of this. Hurt maybe. Personally, the lack of empathy to me is appauling.

Nevertheless, as I sense you only as I do, I feel like you are not surprised at all by any of this either. That is why I come back from time to time to you and Stoneleigh, for I find no calamity in your posts even when they sound and feel calamitous.

What I do miss and desire to hear (and I apologize if I have missed it from my perspective) in your issuings, is what your sense is of our connectness above and beyond our systematic measurable values you so eloquently state daily.

I am so right brained, I beg you not toss me to the wolves after this comment.

I am never surprised by people who are not fair, but I will cry and be raised and be moved in my soul at the drop of a hat when a nine year old sings a song they wrote for their dog.

I don't know why we're here, but I don't think it is to 'get' what we can while we can. I think it's to 'give' what we have. Otherwise, what does 'birth' mean?

peace my friend.

Gravity said...

"People must be willing to sacrifice their current lifestyles."

Isn't that dilemma largely social or cultural in nature, and apart from politics, specifically involving certain narrative forms?

The space in which political parties can still channel social movements is somehow inadequate for preemptive reorientation, possibly because the dominant carrier-wave of cultural induction is now entirely centralised, profit-based and requires perpetual consumerism as a profit mechanism, yielding no space for alternative ideologies to be profitably transmitted through the media, thus largely preventing the spontaneous formation of non-consumerist social movements that may be politicized.

Mainstream media provides the dominant narrative for most of society, including politics, and cannot reform its message if inherent profitabilities remain reliant on maximised consumerism.

Gravity said...

That is contradictory, one cannot have a spontaneous formation of broad social movements when applied through dissemination of a prepackaged ideology, but adaptive social movements are required nonetheless.

zander said...

Interesting interview with James Dale Davidson. esp regarding jobless figures in US.


ogardener said...

Blogger VK said...

"In the present economic and political system, we are headed for a really, really bad impact. Hopefully we have some sort of mitigating negative feedback loops but from my readings I can't honestly think of one society that has chosen to reduce it's living standards willingly for the sake of others or for themselves. They usually decline to that point and much worse. Though such a case if found would be really nice to learn off, a society that leaves the earth as they found it."

Some people know how to do this.

$$$Dollar$$$ said...

VK I agree with your premise on the DOW, though for 2011 I see a DOW ~1000 as a high probability event. Prechter sees it bottoming out around 500. If you think we can have a functioning government (resembling anything like we have now) with the DOW at 500, and the resultant bankruptcies involved ------> Non-existent tax base, then you need to think again. I like Stoneleigh's red/green zone analogies. Because government reach and influence will be spotty at best. Imagine what crime and social disorder looks like in such an instance. That does not sound functional to me at all, but it is coming nonetheless.

VK said...

@ Tero,

With US Govt policy as revolting as this, I don't think we stand much of a chance.

Corn Ethanol has such a poor EROEI, it is akin to paying someone to work for them!!

All that precious phosphorus used to power SUV's...Enough to feed 300 Million people while 1 billion go hungry in the world.

One-quarter of all the maize and other grain crops grown in the US now ends up as biofuel in cars rather than being used to feed people, according to new analysis which suggests that the biofuel revolution launched by former President George Bush in 2007 is impacting on world food supplies.

The 2009 figures from the US Department of Agriculture shows ethanol production rising to record levels driven by farm subsidies and laws which require vehicles to use increasing amounts of biofuels.

"The grain grown to produce fuel in the US [in 2009] was enough to feed 330 million people for one year at average world consumption levels," said Lester Brown, the director of the Earth Policy Institute, a Washington thinktank ithat conducted the analysis.

Erin Winthrope said...

Stoneleigh and Ilargi - the 70s:

I would be very interested if either of you could describe what happened to the US economy in the 1970s. I'm trying to understand what caused the general economic downturn that extended from the late 60s to the early 80s, which most people describe more generally as the 1970s economic malaise/stagflation. I'd like to be able to contrast that downturn with today's economic turmoil.

What caused economic activity to slow and unemployment to rise during the 1970s? Many people describe economic conditions during the 1970s as stagflation; but I think on multiple occasions in the past, you've mentioned that stagflation is a misnomer. You either have inflation or deflation, not both simultaneously. Prices of oil and oil-derived consumer products certainly increased; but as you've said many times before, price increases are not inflation. Inflation is an expansion of money and credit. Did money and credit both grow rapidly in the 1970s? If money and credit both grew, then why did the economy undergo such a prolonged period (almost 15 years) of economic malaise?

Is it correct to distinguish the 1970s with our current economic downturn by contrasting methods for dividing a real wealth pie? In the 1970s, economic pain was caused by the real wealth pie being divided into smaller and smaller pieces by relentless price increases that outpaced wage increases (currency inflation). Now, economic pain is derived from people realizing their claims to the real wealth pie overlap with multiple other claims, resulting in the extinguishing of those claims (e.g. vanishing pensions).

EconomicDisconnect said...

With 187 comments I am not sure if this was posted before, but Cynical Tendancy had a very thought provoking piece on Hait that I thought was worth a look:

Anonymous said...

Vk (@ 6:39 PM),

You are right! I don't think we stand much of a chance either. Additionally, another large percentage of grains grown in the USA goes to livestock -- factory farms. Imagine how those conventionally-grown (often GMO) crops destroy the environment as well, via pesticide use, deforestation, squandering of water, animal fecal contamination of waterways and aquifers, etc.

I like "survival socialism." :)

"One Quarter of US Grain Crops Fed to Cars -- Not people, New Figures Show"

Greenpa said...

IM- outstanding story! I'll try to pass it on in good order, if I may.

I have another lovely example of the failure of complexity.

A customer drove in here one day in a brand new Prius. When Priuses were very rare, and expensive. We asked them about how they got it, and they started laughing.

They'd seen it in their dealers scrap yard, waiting to be scrapped, and looking pristine.

It had been faulty; fixed once under warranty - and shortly after that had quit working again. The dealer couldn't find the problem. The Toyota headquarters couldn't find the problem. So- to keep the program flying, they'd just decided to scrap it as a lemon, and give the customers a new one.

Our customers bought it for scrap, intending to fix it, since they were off-gridders with good working knowledge of electricity and batteries.

The guy got down into it- and found....

Yup, a missing wire to the inverter. Hooked it up- worked flawlessly.

They're still driving it, and everybody, except the dealer, is still laughing.

el gallinazo said...

In respect to the recent Guardian article that fully one-quarter of all US grain production is going to feed motor vehicles, insider information has it that the SCOTUS will shortly issue a 5-4 bull (a more appropriate word, for obvious reasons, than a decision) that cars are people too and have full constitutional rights. Thus cars, trucks, and buses will be allowed to contribute to political campaigns and form PAC's without the necessity of incorporating. As a powerful lobby they will be able to dictate (literally) legislation in Congress that will favor the corn / ethanol program. Their viewpoint is that it is better that humans should starve than motor vehicles. After all, the technology of manufacturing a human is much cheaper, and from some perspectives simpler, than manufacturing a modern motor vehicle, and humans are more disposable and recyclable.

On the downside however, motor vehicles would also be in jeopardy of being declared terrorists or terrorist sympathizers, and held without charge and tortured at black sites. This would be an obvious sequitur to their full ascendency to constitutional rights.

Jim R said...

el g -- quick, fetch me sodium silicate!

el gallinazo said...


Your reference to sodium silicate reminded me to give the commentariat a heads up to last week's Quirks and Quarks podcast. A scientist traces a high incidence of lung cancer among Chinese women in a certain locale to the great Permian extinction of 250 million odd years ago, a time when most multicellular life on the planet was wiped out. Also, one learns how to circumcise a male fruit fly with a laser ( hint: requires a steady hand and non-denominational).

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


I've just given that story to the entire Earth, well the the Auto-Earth anyway. You may repeat anything I write with some exceptions such as:

My offer of wine and dinner to carpe diem.

My offer to accept a cuddle from Amy.

Since you liked that story, there be more where that came from. Another troublesome glitch in our ALDS system was a software bomb. It happened sporadically and the software maintenance team was stymied. We technicians, always keen to polish our reputations, asked if they could show us where they thought it was failing. I think they probably thought, oh sure these uneducated bozos are gonna find our problem for us. But they opened up a lineprinter listing about 7 inches thick and pointed to a subroutine. It always happens after this subroutine executes, but we know the code is correct. It must be a hardware problem.

It was a small piece of code. We looked it over and couldn't see anything wrong. So we started looking at the hardware to see if they might be right. It took awhile, but I finally discovered that the problem was software. On that computer, there were two ways to transfer execution control to a subroutine and to exit from it. Whoever wrote that part of the program coded the exit instruction to return to an address that had been stored in memory by the subroutine call instruction. Unfortunately, the call instruction that had been coded didn't write a return there, so it jumped to some unpredictable location.

My eldest brother worked for Grain Processing Corporation as a distillery operator. The company hired an engineering firm to design and install a new distillation column and plumb it in.

Once it was completed, they brought the operators over to see it and tell them how it was going to operate. After carefully eyeballing everything including the maze of tubes going in and out, one of the operators commented that it won't work. An irritated Engineer said of course it will work and sent them away.

Not long after, they fired up the column and were mystified that nothing came out of one of the vapor lines. They rechecked everything and kept trying. Eventually, the operators were able to point out to them that the vapor line was connected in a circle right back into the column. That's how it was on the blueprints.

Phlogiston Água de Beber said...


Here's another story I think you might like. It took place in your neck of the woods and should be a cautionary tale for those pushing for high-volume construction of nuke power plants.

In my computer service rep days, I was sent to the brand new nuke plant in St. Cloud. One of the engineers was assigned to escort me. We had to wait in a maintenance shed for some time until they could get me cleared or some such thing. While waiting we shot some bull. He had a great story about someting that happened during testing of systems prior to fueling the reactor.

During construction, they hired a lot of local labor. When it came time to pressure test a cooling line that terminated in the river some distance away, they handed a tag number to one of these locals and told him to go out to the valve station and cutoff that valve. Because there were no communications to the valve station they had to wait until he returned before starting the pumps. He didn't come back. Since it was about lunchtime, they assumed he had gone to St. Cloud to eat. They sent people to town to look for him because they were anxious to get started. He couldn't be found, but after awhile he came speeding up the rode and skidded to a stop. He jumped out of his pickup, reached in the bed and said here's that valve. That pipe is awful hard and all I had was a hacksaw.

scandia said...

@ogardener...THANK-YOU for the Kogi documentary!

EconomicDisconnect said...

El G,
was that due to high levels of iridium at the K/T boundary?

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jan Steinman said...

Thank you for that tribute to Kate. I've been a fan of the whole family (including Loudon) for many years, and it was great to watch the videos. RIP, Kate -- you are missed!

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 248   Newer› Newest»