Good Layman's guide to the financial crisis

[slapout9]

The Still Report #9 on fixing the monetary system. You can also review the previous 8 reports at the link below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZioD9QfAA&feature=sub

[Surferbeetle]

From the 8 Jan 2010 Bloomberg Pimco’s Gross Says Economy Too Fragile for Fed Exit (Update1) By Kathleen Hays and Cordell Eddings

Bill Gross, who runs the world’s biggest mutual fund at Pacific Investment Management Co., said the U.S. economy is too fragile for the Federal Reserve to back away from its stimulus measures.

“Four percent of the viable workforce has given up and dropped out,” Gross said in Bloomberg Radio interview. “To think the economy can snap back in the face of that is a bit of a stretch.”

U.S. employers eliminated 85,000 jobs in December after a revised addition of 4,000 in the previous month, the Labor Department said today. The median estimate of 76 economists in a Bloomberg News survey was for no change in nonfarm payrolls. The unemployment rate held at 10 percent. The underemployment rate, which includes part-time workers who’d prefer a full-time position and people who want work but have given up looking, rose to 17.3 percent in December from 17.2 percent.

The weakening U.S. fiscal outlook may continue to push Treasury yields up faster than German bunds, Gross said. Projected increases in Treasury borrowing contrast with the fiscal outlook in Germany where a constitutional amendment has mandated a balanced budget for the country by 2016.

[selil]

The Still Report #9 on fixing the monetary system. You can also review the previous 8 reports at the link below.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDZioD9QfAA&feature=sub

Is he for real? He seems to tickle my BS! bone.. Yet I don't know enough to refute him just go .. huh? His arguments seem like strawmen.

[slapout9]

Is he for real? He seems to tickle my BS! bone.. Yet I don't know enough to refute him just go .. huh? His arguments seem like strawmen.

Real and accurate however he is a long time reporter and admits that. Milton Friedman gave full support to his concept, actually Franklin's and Lincoln's.

Here is a link to his partner (Paul Carrmack) who is a lawyer and gives more details about the plan and the Milton Friedman endordement and Ron Paul also.


http://www.themoneymasters.com/

[Dayuhan]

Is he for real? He seems to tickle my BS! bone.. Yet I don't know enough to refute him just go .. huh? His arguments seem like strawmen.

I'd say your BS bone is functioning rather well. Good example of the Michael Moore technique, though. Cherrypick a bunch of factoids that support whatever point you want to make, ignore whatever facts don't, slam your chosen bits together, announce a conclusion, declare gravely that every fact you cite is verifiably true, and you can convince people, especially if you're preaching to the choir.

Conspiracy theories play to the "us vs them" instinct, one of the most deeply implanted reflexes of the human race, and that's why their effective. "Them" may be the bankers, the Jews, the Commies, Wall Street, The Corporations, The Aliens, The Vatican, etc and ad nauseam, but as long as it lets us point the finger somebody will buy the theory.

We've seen a block of financial history stretching back to the collective psychosis of the late 90s stock frenzy unwind, and it hasn't been pretty. One of the most fascinating aspects of the unwinding, for me, has been the success that politicians of both parties have had at diverting attention from their own rather appalling oversights and mistakes to the financial industry. Certainly Wall Street makes an admirable scapegoat and deserves a share of the blame, but short-sighted actions and policies coming from Washington were at the heart of the chaos. Oddly, much of the problem came from Democrats acting like Republicans and Republicans acting like Democrats... but I suppose that sort of thing is to be expected.

[Ken White]

The above makes for two great Posts in one night. Well done.

[Dayuhan]

Thanks... I'd like to say that a month or so away from the forum was about recharging batteries or something like that, but in reality it was just holiday frenzy followed by post-holiday lethargy. Hope to be around a bit more...

[slapout9]

Bill Still radio interview.


http://theeagle939.com/secret-of-oz-...th-gary-nolan/

[Ski]

All true, but I'd add the two systems reinforce themselves as you see Wall St tycoons move into important positions within the Fed and vice versa. Add in the campaign donations - and Wall St firms are #1 in donations to political campaigns - and the system starts getting real inbred.

And it's going to get much worse now that the Supreme Court has overturned a century old decision that placed caps on corporate donations:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...0,850920.story

We're really going down the road of no return here. Corporations can now effectively buy their politician of choice.

We've seen a block of financial history stretching back to the collective psychosis of the late 90s stock frenzy unwind, and it hasn't been pretty. One of the most fascinating aspects of the unwinding, for me, has been the success that politicians of both parties have had at diverting attention from their own rather appalling oversights and mistakes to the financial industry. Certainly Wall Street makes an admirable scapegoat and deserves a share of the blame, but short-sighted actions and policies coming from Washington were at the heart of the chaos. Oddly, much of the problem came from Democrats acting like Republicans and Republicans acting like Democrats... but I suppose that sort of thing is to be expected.

[slapout9]

And it's going to get much worse now that the Supreme Court has overturned a century old decision that placed caps on corporate donations:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...0,850920.story

We're really going down the road of no return here. Corporations can now effectively buy their politician of choice.

Yes, they have indirectly bestowed a right to vote on an organzation instead of Human Beings (Citizens).

[tequila]

Interesting to see how foreign corporations are affected by this ruling. If China Investment Corporation or Gazprom's U.S. subsidiary decided to start funding candidates or campaigns, what exactly would stop them under this ruling?

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Ski:

And it's going to get much worse now that the Supreme Court has overturned a century old decision that placed caps on corporate donations:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-a...0,850920.story

We're really going down the road of no return here. Corporations can now effectively buy their politician of choice.

Not sure I'd necessarily agree with that. Taking a contrarian viewpoint on this issue. Just a few points to consider:

1) These days, it needs to be more about disclosure than placing contribution caps. You place caps, all you do is incentivize the current players to find new & more creative ways around the System, as far as contribution caps go. Make then disclose EVERYTHING on the Internet within seven (7) calendar days, or $1k a day fine per non-disclosed contribution retroactive to the contribution date. That would put an end to all the nonsense real quick.

2) Issue you might want to consider is that the judges just decided that this whole approach of political contribution caps was an ongoing trap with the real potential for never-ending litigation. This may be a case of the SCOTUS simply sending the pols a message of "Try a different approach - we're done with this one". Can't blame them for trying to reduce their future workload.

3) Third, most pols are "A" type personalities. They are not into being controlled, certainly not by contributors (seen that effect up close and personal, more than once). And these days in particular, if you are bought and owned by "Big Anything" (Business, Labor, etc.), you are probably going to be in a world of hurt politically, because the message being received out there right from pols up for election/reelection is "You are subject to being replaced", if not outright "You're Fired!". And being an elected pol who is 'owned' by "Big Anything" looks to be a firing offense. There's a whole lot of very "cold angry" voters out there.

4) I can see why the newsies (main line old school media) are all upset over this SCOTUS decision. It doesn't do anything positive for them, but it can certainly energize the new media (Internet, the blogs, www.opensecrets.org, etc.) competition, which is already beating them (old line MSM) like a rented mule.

I look at this as "Change" - and we all know the magnificent effectiveness of these campaign contribution 'caps' to date - so let's try some "change" in the disclosure area. If the pols go out & screw it up worse, well, just a few more of then to toss out of office.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Tequila:

Interesting to see how foreign corporations are affected by this ruling. If China Investment Corporation or Gazprom's U.S. subsidiary decided to start funding candidates or campaigns, what exactly would stop them under this ruling?

That's part of the problem - they're not being stopped now. It's been illegal, but that hasn't stopped them at all - they use use all sorts of loopholes, such as US branches, employees, 'bundlers' of contributions, etc., etc. There's an entire cottage industry of people who spend their entire life figuring out ways around the campaign contribution 'caps'.

It's the political version of the old "Federal Income Tax Shelter" business.

Answer: Make pol's/wannabe pol's disclose EVERYTHING (any type of contribution of any sort from anybody) on an extremely timely basis (7 days preferred) on the Internet.

"Complexity is Easy, Simplicity is Hard".

[tequila]

It's been illegal, but that hasn't stopped them at all - they use use all sorts of loopholes, such as US branches, employees, 'bundlers' of contributions, etc., etc. There's an entire cottage industry of people who spend their entire life figuring out ways around the campaign contribution 'caps'.

Except now it's not even illegal. You can't stop them at all, no? Not even with bureaucratic legal cutouts? They can fund all the ads they want.

This is not about contributions to candidates. This is about running ads. For instance, Goldman Sachs can now run all the ads it wants against whatever candidate it wants. Before they had to form PACs or whatever, which were limited themselves, but now that doesn't matter, and they can spend whatever they wish.

Sounds more like an excellent tool of intimidation, rather than outright bribery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us...gewanted=print

The Supreme Court has handed lobbyists a new weapon. A lobbyist can now tell any elected official: if you vote wrong, my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

“We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.

...

Thursday’s decision, in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, “is going to flip the existing campaign order on its head,” said Benjamin L. Ginsberg, a Republican campaign lawyer at the law-and-lobbying firm Patton Boggs who has represented both candidates and outside groups, including Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group formed to oppose Senator John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign.

“It will put on steroids the trend that outside groups are increasingly dominating campaigns,” Mr. Ginsberg said. “Candidates lose control of their message. Some of these guys lose control of their whole personalities.”

“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things,” he added, “and outside groups will take over more of the functions — advertising support, get out the vote — that parties do now.”
In practice, major publicly held corporations like Microsoft or General Electric are unlikely to spend large sums money on campaign commercials, for fear of alienating investors, customers and other public officials.

Instead, wealthy individuals and companies might contribute to trade associations, groups like the Chamber of Commerce or the National Rifle Association, or other third parties that could run commercials.

Previously, Mr. Noble of Skadden Arps said, his firm had advised companies to be wary about giving money to groups that might run so-called advocacy commercials, because such activity could trigger disclosure requirements that would identify the corporate financers.

“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”

[Ken White]

Quoted:

“Parties will sort of shrink in the relative importance of things...”

and

“It could be traced back to you,” he said. “That is no longer a concern.”

The first is great news -- the Parties are the far more significant problem. The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

The upshot is that things will change but not much and as much or more for the better as for worse. Consider also that the Federal Government treats Corporations as citizens in a great many respects. (LINK - .pdf; Scroll down to Section I).

[tequila]

The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

Please explain what you mean by this. Somehow I don't think the average American voter has telepathy that will allow him to suss out which front organization gets funding from what source. That doesn't happen now and shooting the disclosure rules in the kneecaps will not help them do so in the future.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Tequila:

This is not about contributions to candidates. This is about running ads. For instance, Goldman Sachs can now run all the ads it wants against whatever candidate it wants. Before they had to form PACs or whatever, which were limited themselves, but now that doesn't matter, and they can spend whatever they wish.

Sounds more like an excellent tool of intimidation, rather than outright bribery.

In politics, depends upon what your defination is of "contribution" is. If it's a $1 mil advocacy ad campaign that I as the candidate don't have to fund, that's one really nice "contribution" in practice.

It may not legally be classed as a "contribution", but it sure barks like one.

The bigger point to me is that this ruling really has the potential to simplify the process instead of making compliance with campaign finance rules even more mind numbingly complex.

Re: The PAC limits. They just went out and formed more PAC's, 527's and all the others.

About PAC's

About 527 Organizations

I'm just looking for more transparency from everybody involved, and this SCOTUS ruling didn't hurt that at all.

Can one result of this ruling provide an excellent tool of intimidation? Yes, but truthfully, the intimidation tool has always been there, it just wasn't quite as obvious - see the 527 Organizations listed above.

Worked very well at the primary level, not so well in a general election.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Originally posted by Ken White:

The second is true only in the legal sense -- that factor will affect the way the market treats the Company or organization. The American body politic, collectively, is a lot smarter than the media and the so-called educated elite -- and the Politicians -- think they are.

Agreed. These days in particular, once the voters/potential voters get even a whiff of a potential campaign to manipulate their vote by an "outside entity", they'll turn and you've (if you are running the advocacy campaign) just lost them, and there doesn't seen to be any evidence out there (to date, at least) of anybody getting them back.

Btw, just as an aside, if I wanted to kill off anybody's chances at getting elected to a congressional office in this election cycle, I'd have some of the big advocacy groups from the 2006/2008 election cycles run big style ad campaigns for them - likely be the Kiss of Death.

[Ken White]

Please explain what you mean by this. Somehow I don't think the average American voter has telepathy that will allow him to suss out which front organization gets funding from what source...

Essentially proves my point.

No telepathy to it; they just look up from their navels -- or LiLo's -- or the BBQ Grill on occasion to see what's going on and they can spot BS from a mile away. I've watched 'em do it and gotten a lot of laughs over many years watching it happen. See Massachusets, 19 Jan 10...

See also Watcher in the Middle below. See NJ, VAS and others earlier. I'll bet you laugh at or deride the Tea Party folks; the Media certainly has. Missed that boat, they did.

That doesn't happen now...

Of course it happens now. Why do you think John Kerry got beaten? Why did McCain get beaten? How did Obama win -- and now what's happening to Obama. The great unwashed may get scammed but they figure it put fairly quickly and will repay you for chicanery...

...and shooting the disclosure rules in the kneecaps will not help them do so in the future.

Disagree, it will make some differences but most will be offset by increased money in the process.

Newt Gingrich is a twit IMO and doesn't need to be elected to any office but he's right in that elections are grossly underfunded -- that deliberately by Congress in an effort to protect incumbents. They'll be the losers -- and should be. The Republicans think that the Corporations will outspend the Unions and thus the Democrats will be discomfited. They're right but the Unions will work harder and offset that advantage.

Again see Watcher in the Middle. The decision will change techniques but will have little effect on results.

[slapout9]

The Republicans think that the Corporations will outspend the Unions and thus the Democrats will be discomfited. They're right but the Unions will work harder and offset that advantage.

Don't know if they can Ken. Corporations have a lot deeper pockets and there are a lot more of them then Unions. Playing field is not even close to being level in that respect.