Ben Franklin Report: The Mark to Market Rule

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Fine Line
comedycentral.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor NASA Name Contest

As if in direct response to Colbert's challenge to create something, anything to believe in to turn the recession around, the Financial Accounting Standards Board changed the Mark to Market rule. Unfortunately this was actually in response to intense pressure from Congress and the Banks. This lets banks revalue their toxic assets before reporting them on their books. (Which makes me wonder why this was done just after the end of the first quarter.) The banks that took on more risk than they could manage don't just get to value these assets at whatever they want, they get to value these pieces of steaming crap at whatever they think someone would pay if anyone was interested in buying a steaming pile of shit just because someone called it golden.

Of course this looks exactly like what we have been doing so far in relation to this banking fiasco. We looked at the disaster and saw that the people in charge had established a system of perverse incentives that encouraged highly risky acts and called them extremely safe because of a complete lack of regulation. Our response has been to give even more huge shit tons of cash these very same people that fucked us for fun and profit and by removing any other regulation that insists we call a spade a spade. I am finding it harder and harder to resist the urge to call for murderous mobs to converge on Wall Street.

The Wall Street response to the reduction of regulation was obvious. Though, two years ago, if you said that Dow 8,000 would be good news people either would have thought you were crazy or they would have been terrified.

In this article, John Berry tries to criticize the negative reaction to the rule change that I outlined above. But he is comparing apples to oranges when he says,

The family doesn’t have to put up money to cover the difference between the mortgage and the lower market value. Nor should the Atlanta bank have to take a big hit on its reported income because some other mortgage-backed securities owner sold in a depressed market.

He is comparing the effect on banks that have to back their lending by having 10% of that value on their balance sheets. Which of course home owners don't do. And the family that is upside down on their mortgage will have to pay that money on the mortgage that is more than the value of their home just because they bought at the wrong time.

Lots of pundits and apologists for the financial industry keep trying to accuse home owners that face loosing their residence of buying beyond their means. Through this argument they try to push some of the moral culpability for this fiasco on people who only wanted a nice house. They didn't buy above their means, they listened to the market. The market told them what they were worth. It's not their fault the market lied to them because they couldn't have understood the market. Seriously, if huge banks couldn't see this coming when they specialize in finance, then its simply irrational to accuse home buyers of wrongdoing just because the effect of their actions is to further reduce the property value of their neighbors.

Berry does make a legitimate point about the removal of reality in accounting. He asserts that the Atlanta bank he is referring to in the above quote intends to hold on to its mortgage backed securities until they mature. Meaning the bank will be getting all the money from the mortgagees. This is the family in his apples to oranges scenario who has to pay the full value of the mortgage even though the house is worth less. (But hey, at least it still provides the same amount of warmth and shelter. Its just that breakfast nook they added doesn't mean they can afford to send the kids to college.) This means that the banks assets are really worth nearly their full value because the bank will get paid what it originally bargained. So the accounting rule lets them value their assets at what they can reasonably expect to still get paid over 30 years and they can lend out more money to consumers and businesses which increases liquidity and gets the markets moving again and leads to more manufacturing, more jobs, and more spending. Everyone's happy.

Except that just brings us back to where we started last November. No one knows how many mortgages will go into arrears or how many will be devalued through the proposed new bankruptcy rules. The short of it is we don't know if the mortgage backed securities will be worth what they were originally bargained for in 30 years when they run their course. All we do know is that they will be worth less. If not become worthless.

Anticipating The Worst: Update

Ohio state legislators are beginning the process of seeking permission from the federal government to allow local law enforcement officers to enforce immigration laws. This is not intrinsically racist, unless you believe that having an immigration policy is racist. However, if you listen to the segment in this link, toward the end there is the comment made that this is being justified in relation to job competition.

I haven't heard of any race riots yet (though there has been an obscene level of unexplained gun violence) but comments like this one cause me to be concerned. When made by politicians, particularly those that have been in office through the beginning of this crisis, or those who may have voted for legislation that could be seen as having contributed to this recession, comments like this seem to be a crass attempt to redirect public outrage away from our elected representatives and the corporate crooks responsible toward a marginalized and politically defenseless group. I think I am looking for a more serious word than "crass" but I don't want to pull a Godwin's Law at this stage. Though when it comes to vilifying an ethnic minority in a time of great economic crisis it is hard to come up with alternative adjectives.

Again, what worries me is the speed with which this is progressing. This was already an issue politicians and talking heads used to distract people when times were good. Now that jobs are scarce, the economic fear mongering that has been invalid for so long is starting to get traction at the fringes of the sane media. Note that the link above is to an NPR station.

The Ben Franklin Report: Tax Revenue

California state Assemblyman Tom Ammiano, Democrat, introduced a bill in that state's legislature proposing the legalization and taxing of recreational use of marijuana. Ammiano's arguments immediately touched on all the major points that the pro-legalization crowd has been making in between bong hits for decades now. To me the most significant argument is the fiscal one.

Legalization of a nonviolent activity lowers the number of criminals, reduces police costs of pursuing recreational pot smokers, reduces numbers of criminals in prison, reduces prison costs, eliminates need for violence in pot buying transaction and so reduces violent crime, brings marijuana production into the light of day where it can be regulated which produces tax revenue and regulation, regulation of production and use and quality has health benefits, which further reduce costs to society, and creates jobs.



Sure its not a new argument and it is the one that most young potheads are likely to jump on first because it seems like it would be so appealing to the forever cash-strapped government. "Lets just let them tax pot and then they will rush to make it legal, man." The major proponents of such thinking being in a chemically induced type-B personalities, rarely get any traction in mainstream politics. In trying economic times such as these I would expect a well reasoned argument that points out, not only the increased tax revenue ($1 billion in California alone) but also the potential cost savings in other programs, would get a better reception.

However, these arguments have failed before and its not because they are poorly reasoned, despite my poking fun at potheads. There are the usual histrionics that are thrown about by the anti-drug lunatics about the impending collapse of society, and "Oh God, won't somebody please think of the children!?!!?!" Despite the truth that legalized recreational drugs do lead to negative health consequences, and beer and tobacco companies do target children with advertising, those are threats that have proven to be small and that we as a society have obviously chosen to live with. It is also popular to point out that history(the repeal of prohibition, Amsterdam) has shown us that when certain recreational drugs are legalized it eliminates the demand in the informal market for the goods, which directs the attention of professional criminals to other activities. Then the reduction of interaction between normal Joe Sixpack (Johnny Jointsmoker?) people and hardened criminals and the police reduces violent crime. All of this is still to leave out the potential beneficial impact on our foreign relations.

I suspect that the main reason this type of legislation fails time and time again is that it has to be voted on by politicians. Politicians who can count votes. It doesn't matter how many potheads and marijuana activists get together because their voice will still be marginalized in the minds of the elected officials. It's hard to be taken seriously when the thing you are advocating for is illegal and all you want it for is recreation. (Hence the medical marijuana movement) The other reason elected officials will never vote for legalization of recreational marijuana is that they don't want to have their name associated with the downfall of society if all the histrionics of the sour-faced Republican old lady's turns out to be true.

I am Libertarian, and there are two ways to look at the recreational marijuana issue from that perspective as long as you believe that marijuana smoking is no different than tobacco or alcohol use. There is the Ron Paul view that whatever you do with your body is none of my business as long as it doesn't affect me. Then there is the long term Ted Nugent view that says this does affect me because on the aggregate there will be societal health costs from the negative health impacts of drug use.

I suppose I fall into a third category that doesn't care. Sure there are health costs, but like I said above, there are social costs involved, but most social costs of marijuana are created by its illegality, the real social costs stemming from health and high driving when likened to tobacco and alcohol are clearly so minimal that our society has decided (and I agree) that the benefits of legalization outweigh the costs.

So why don't I smoke? There are various reasons but mostly its a political statement. In my experience pot smokers can tend to get over enthusiastic about their recreational drug of choice and become zealous advocates of its use, and distrust those that do not. Sure, this could easily be because it makes one paranoid, but just being in the room makes you just as arrested when the cops show up. My true friends respect me even if they don't respect my decision and offers to partake are made out of common politeness arising from commensality. (After all, what can be a more ritualistic "breaking of bread" than a shared consumption of something that not only involves shared risk but that gives a spiritual sense of significance?) Still, my reflexive aversion to perceived peer pressure, my history of refusal that has lasted so long it has become part of my identity, combined with what I fear is addictive behavior continue to keep me away even though I think legalization of recreational use of marijuana would be a good thing for the country.

I will leave you with this video a friend posted to Facebook.

Confidence: not yours

I was going to remark on the relation between Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's speech yesterday, the way the markets reacted, and right wing pundits and opinion columnists, but I am having a bloggers' existential funk. I'll get back to that.

What I was going to say was a response to Geithner's comment,

"Our challenge is much greater today because the American people have lost faith in the leaders of our financial institutions, and are skeptical that their government has – to this point -- used taxpayers' money in ways that will benefit them. This has to change."

I wondered how much the lack of confidence the people have in governments ability to spend us out of the economy is due to past failures, or if it was due to the constant barrage of ideological criticism the bailouts have faced. I initially thought that this was a slightly more tenable position than friends I have who simply remark, "I hate the Republicans," when discussing the situation. While possibly more nuanced, I have come to realize that that thought is still colored by my dislike for the general Republican platform and my disgust with Congress.

Then I considered why my own criticism didn't cause me to feel any cognitive dissonance with regard to the thought that Republican ideologues are just peddling uncertainty. Other than a certain us vs. them outgroup antagonism, I find myself hard pressed to reconcile the apparent hypocrisy. To be sure, there is a significant difference in the details of the two (three?) bailouts, but what I am trying to do is separate out my moral, emotional, and ideological proclivities from the factual differences in hopes that I can logically assess the situation.

Clearly that is difficult for someone like me coming from a background of squatters rights and phreaking.

Depression Era Tactics

We have really hit the shit now people. Labor is dusting off tactics that they haven't used since the bad old days of company towns and anarchists. Laid off workers have occupied a factory in Chicago. They were given short notice of the closing of the plant and are attempting to get the severance and vacation pay due to them. This is actually connected to the $700,000,000,000.00 bailout because one of the banks that got assistance from the Treasury is the bank that finances this company that employees these workers and said bank refuses to loan the company the money it needs to keep up with its payroll, forcing it to close its factory doors. Which is exactly why there needed to be better controls put on this massive act of corporate welfare so that Paulson wasn't left with the sole option of begging the banks to not horde the cash but deploy it. Because if they won't spend the money then the bailout can't serve the purpose it was authorized for.

The Afterglow

I have made the analogy before that the campaign was like being hit on by a drunken sociopath. In the aftermath of the election it seems even more so with various special interest groups and media outlets remembering various promises made by Obama while on the road to the White House. They seem like an expectant lover on the morning after, hopeful that this impulsive decision to get in bed with this beautiful person who said all the right things will turn into a healthy relationship. All the while the recipient of the lover's attention hurriedly prepares to move on with his agenda while assuring the lover that, "that was all pillow talk baby." We can at least hope that Obama doesn't spurn the voters like a one night stand. But he is a politician and I won't hold my breath.

John Stewart made the observation to Obama that the country isn't what it was when he started this race. Truly Obama is inheriting a sloppy shit sandwich from one of the most hated presidents in history. Unfortunately for the discontent, Bush is scheduled to leave office and they will loose a symbol of everything they dislike about U.S. policy. But the problems he created will remain. What happens if Obama fails? Do we loose the meager gains we have made in race relations? Does the country swing wildly back to the politically extreme right? Will there be much left of the country after four years if he can't get a hold on these various crises?

Parts of the country started to reflect Bush's low approval ratings by going blue this election. My question is whether these states who were red in 2004 have an indelible sin on them for causing the last 4 years of unnecessary downward spiraling of the nation. Ohio and Pennsylvania, I am looking at you.

As usual, I have nothing positive to say.

The Ben Franklin Report: Strains in the Economy

With the latest manufacturing data from the United States showing even more signs of contraction, one of the few thigns that can be said for certain about the overall situation, is that what might have been limited to the financial sector is clearly affecting the very basic sectors of the economy. Also, those were predicting that this affair was going to be a minor correction that would pass in a quarter or at most two, have been revealed as having played a guessing game, as the crisis is instead shaping up to be the worst economic crisis in almost a century. 

Manifestations of the problems are appearing in sales reports of the auto industry, where all of the manufacturers were hit with double-digit drops in sales, especially trucks. On Wall Street, too, there are signs as Circuit City has received a delisting notification from the New York Stock Exchange, and plans to close 155 stores as its death spiral continues to get tighter and tighter. 

Part of the misdirection that was at the heart of the financial crisis is coming unwound, as investors who bought notes from the now defunct Lehman Brothers that were promised to be sound investments worth of inclusion in retirement investment portfolios are now revealed to be worth only pennies on the dollar. Regulators are going to investgiate, but unfortunately, due to the counter-terrorism priorities of the Bush Administration, the FBI has been left critically short-handed as they try to investigate the myriad economic crimes and financial fraud. School districts in Wisconsin were caught up in their own form of financial mismanagement. Buying supposedly safe investments, the now infamous C.D.O.s, school boards all over the state are facing the prospect of cutting services in order to meet financial obligations from the defaults of various corporations.

Strains are also being seen on the macro scale, as the primary contributor to American GDP, the Federal Government, has announced plans to finance the largest budget deficit in history. The government itself won't put a number on how much the deficit will be exactly, but estimated that the total amount of bonds issued would be approximately $550 Billion for the October-December period, including $300 Billion for Federal Reserve liquidity operations. Analysts in the field estimate that the government's borrowing needs for the next fiscal year, which began in August, will total up to $2.1 Trillion. This number stems from funding the $850 Billion deficit projected in the Federal Budget, and approximately $500 Billion to further reinforce the Fed's liquidity operations of the amalgram soup, and the remainder going to roll over securities from state and local governments which are expected to see a significant drop in demand over the next year. The budget deficit is so large partly in thanks to deteriorating economic conditions and the $700 Billion bailout package passed by Congress against almost every economist's better judgment, but doesn't factor in whatever additional stimulus proposal will be passed by the Congress during the lame duck period following the election. 

On the micro scale, individual homeowners and families are also showing severe signs of strain. Throughout the country, but particularly in areas that are hardest hit by the mortgage crisis, more nad more homes are going 'underwater' to use the industry phrase. That is to say, about 1 in 5 of all homes in American are worth less than the balance of the mortgage the homeowner is paying. Families are also having a harder time making ends meet with their utility bills, also. As further evidence, about 44% of families are living paycheck to paycheck, and about 48% have less than $5,000 in liquid assets. So, in the event of a family emergency, medical or otherwise, very few would have any options, especially with bank lending still not an option, despite the Treasury's and Federal Reserve's efforts.

There is no shortage of people who are ready to criticize the Treasury and the Federal Reserve for their management of this crisis and their willingness to bail out institutions that were threatening to go bankrupt. A Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert J. Aumann predicts that more banks and insurance companies will go under because of moral hazard and the lack of consequence. Others say that deflation is the order of the day, also brought about by the various interventions in the free market. My question has been, since this crisis started, where were those in the position to do something about this problem when it started becoming apparent? Why weren't more authorities, for lack of a better word, willing to stand up and make warnings? Unfortunately, someone who is such a position is also at a loss for why pronouncements against the general consensus come in whispers, rather than shouts. 

I'll leave off with the latest scary charts from the Federal Resreve of St. Louis. Good night and good luck.

Click on the charts to see them at full size.

The Walk Of Shame: Paulson

It looks like Paulson's greatest career attribute is the ability to beg. Perhaps that is how he got installed as the ineffectual treasury secretary. He got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to support the $700,000,000,000.00 BBBBBBBBBBillion Bailout, and on Monday he begged the banks not to horde the cash he is handing them. He is doing this while expressly stating that there are no strings attached. Paulson said,

At a time when events naturally make even the most daring investors more risk-averse, the needs of our economy require that our financial institutions not take this new capital to hoard it, but to deploy it.

The free market has been dead since FDR, but the Bush administration has found a way to revive the same trickle down economics that got us into this recession, distract everyone by saying you are resorting to socialism. The awful truth behind that scary buzz word is that they are socializing the financial industry's losses in order to insulate their profits from market forces.

The Ben Franklin Report: Leave the Spigot Open

While workers in GM's Janesville, Wisconsin SUV plant are getting a lesson in freemarket economics, Ron Paul is trying to spread the word about an economic malady of a slightly different nature: the ballooning and out of control federal debt that we've been covering here on the Fringe Element. As if the near vertical climb that is growth in the monetary base weren't already enough, the Federal Reserve is going to go ahead and provide unlimited amounts of funding in return for collateral to central banks from around the world. One could say that this is a very selfless act of a benevolent and intelligent Chairman, but more likely, this is an effort to return monetize US Government debt as Dr. Paul points out in the above article. This move by the Federal Reserve will have, perhaps, unintended consequences, as Central Banks return bonds originating in the United States, such as those issued by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to our shores. After all, in a liquidity crisis, why would an institution choose to hold onto assets that are, at best, potentially troublesome?

The rest of the world is also responding to the crisis in ways similar to the United States. After weekend meetings of the IMF and World Bank in Washington, D.C., financial leaders from around the world agreed to initiate a coordinated response, and the markets seem to be enjoying the show. In Japan, the Central Bank is ready to assist any effort negotiated by the IMF, but has so far not announced any support of particular amount of money to domestic banks and financial institutions. In Europe, markets surged amid a flurry of announcements from various national governments laying out plans to guarantee their financial sectors in various degrees, ranging from total guarantees of interbank lending and capital infusions in Germany to bond lending programs in Portugal. In China, the weather is a little less rough, with currency reserves recently surpassing $1.9 trillion in value, the People's Bank's chief Yi Gong, while promising cooperation with the other members of the IMF,  has expressed full confidence that China will weather the financial turmoil. Perhaps not coincidentally, the central government in the same weekend announced plans to double rural disposable income by 2020 to create a domestic consumption base as a way to offset falling exports to the U.S.

While some lament the appearance that Capitalism has become the newest whipping boy in the arena of economic philosophies, Treasurer Henry Paulson took bold steps in ushering in a whole new era of American socialism, essentially seizing portions of the nine largest lending houses in the United States.

The Ben Franklin Report: The Bailout Settles In

Just in case you need a reference point to how much the bailout was, consider the number to the right, the cost of the War in Iraq thus far. Yes, the bailout that was passed last week surpasses the amount of money spent on that mistake by leaps and bounds. So, when history is written, how should this period be judged? Where were our priorities? Did we ensure that every child in America had access to primary health care? Were we more concerned about finding a cure for cancer, or spending money on making sure that phone calls and emails didn't contain terrorist-related content?



The bailout and its effects in the market place, in a nut shell. Apparently, today the chaos continues as the first market to open after Bush's signature, the Israeli Tel Aviv Stock Exchange tumbled like a rock going down a sheer slope. 

The fundamental source of the entire financial crisis has been the opaque nature of the books of the biggest financial institutions. The fact that they refused to value assets which, if shown in the light of day, would be revealed to have little revenue potential, will probably end up costing the companies billions in dollars is only being papered over by the bill that the various branches of the federal government approved on Friday. This is further reinforced by new rules from the Securities and Exchange Commission stating that corporations no longer have to price these assets on a 'mark-to-market' basis. That is to say, they no longer have to value them at the price they would likely fetch in a free and open market, but rather can just pencil in whatever they want and use these assets as capital, or as collateral for the various short-term lending programs offered by the Federal Reserve. However, the hanging $55 trillion question in the air is what happens when the Credit Default Swaps start becoming unbundled. For instance, you may remember A.I.G. which met its fate and an $85 billion bailout from the Federal Treasury because of these insurance policies, but has yet to sell a single asset, despite blowing through $61 billion of the money provided in the bailout. Yet their executives party like Nero in Rome. Party on, Wayne. Why worry when none of those responsible for the lending practices will ever be prosecuted? 

So, with some banks saying that they won't even participate in the No Bank Left Behind program and banks that will still fail regardless of their participation, what are we left with? A budget problem that will hamstring the domestic and foreign policies of the next President, whoever it may be, an IRS with undercover investigative powers which will be on the prowl to make sure that every dollar Uncle Sam has coming is brought to the Treasury, and good, old-fashioned rage almost everywhere other than Wall Street. 

The Ben Franklin Report: Talking Points and the MSM

It was interesting to me to observe the tone of media coverage regarding the Bailout over the last week. Prior to the rejection of the first bill by the House the coverage was neutral with most coverage being directed at explaining just what the legislation was supposed to do but there was almost no coverage of popular opinion which was vastly opposed to the measure. After the shock subsided from the precipitous drop in the stock markets following the vote by the House, and it was found that the sky had not fallen and business continued as normal, the MSM started covering the vast negative public sentiment. This was mainly as a means of explaining why the Representatives voted as they did and attached to the old adage that the House is the more populist body. Suggesting that the real people of the country are only actually represented in government at the national level in the House of Representatives.

Until this morning the MSM was freely using the term "Bailout" to describe this massive gift of taxpayer dollars to the greedy rich motherfuckers that got us into this crisis in the first place. However this morning, the MSM has started referring to the bill as the "Rescue Plan." Yes, the Bailout that passed the Senate in the dark hours of the night when noone could see their shame has been spun. Instead of being a colossal failure of leadership, this is now a plan. Instead of being a giant burden of over $10,000 on every taxpayer, this is being called a "Rescue."

How long will this kind of transparent bullshit go unchallenged? Where is the voice of the American people? We, the people of the United States are overwhelmingly opposed to this legislation but if you look at the MSM you would think that we all accept this bill as a necessary evil. This is exactly the same failure of the media that got us into Iraq. Where are the pointed questions? Where are the experts holding the feet of the members of congress to the fire? Why is Kucinich the Keebler the only person that sounds sane? It takes a vegan who thinks he was abducted by aliens to raise concerns about the artificial haste with which this bill is being forced through congress? What about the old adage that the Senate is the more deliberative side of the Legislature?

Where was the thought process yesterday? It was clouded by fear and greed. Fear that there is an imminent catastrophic collapse in the future, and greed motivated by all that money. Why think about rational solutions when you can slip in a rider that directs funds back to your pet projects? If you are going to alienate millions of people by voting "yes" you might as well buy the votes of a few back home.

Like 9/11, this is another crisis that was easy to foresee but once it materializes people in government are using the ignorance of those that did not see it coming to create an unjustified panic in order to gain unfettered power. I cant' believe that exactly the same trick is working on the same people just six years later. I guess Lincoln was wrong.

I wish that was all I had to say about this but I want to highlight the behavior of the presidential candidates and I want to single out a particular economic pundit who has been causing me great personal outrage for the last three weeks.

The H-pod has been getting increasingly aggravating with his constant reliance on the trickle down theory of economics as if it is still a valid method of thinking. As if trickle down hasn't been clearly disproven by the recent recession. As if he isn't just fattening us up for the slaughter. Velshi is just trying to keep the taxpayers calm and encourage acceptance of the vastly flawed Bailout.

As for the candidates, they have both failed to show leadership in this crisis. Neither candidate has even attempted to deliver a strategy for solving this problem. Neither candidate nor their VP nominees have given concrete examples of things they would do if elected that differs from anything they have been saying since June of '07. To me its painfully obvious that they could follow FDR and his lead that propelled us out of the last Great Depression. They start a massive public works project. How about one that creates energy independence? Then you solve two national problems at once. OK, its four problems is you include oil wars in the middle east and energy's impact on the environment. Massive building projects that create super solar farms in the sun belt, wind farms in the great lakes and off the Atlantic coast, factories that produce the new solar power generating windows. The government can spend some of the seven hundred fucking billion dollars of U.S. taxpayer rape on investing in our technology future. The U.S. is falling behind. It was the lack of foresight of congress that caused the Large Hadron collider to be built in France and Belgium.

Both parties have failed. Both houses of Congress have failed. The Bush administration has failed. Local governments have failed. Wallstreet has failed. Individual investors and property buyers have failed. Foreign governments and corporations have failed. There is plenty of blame to go around but little understanding of the full scope of the failure. This colossal failure of leadership is not likely to be cured by panic and a rush to pass the first piece of legislation proposed by an administration that has showen itself to be power hungry and incompetant. We need to vote every one of these selfish beureaucrats and politicians out of office. We need to finish the job of cleaning house that we started in 2006.

Throw the bums out.

A Little More Bacon Makes the Medicine Go Down

Unfortunately, the professional politicians of the Senate, including Sens. and presidential candidates Obama and McCain, voted in favor of a revised version of the bailout. Now, with some tax breaks and other pork barrel spending to enhance the bill's chances to pass through the House, and of course extra flavor. This delicious bacon costs an addition $100 billion, which is far more than I would ever pay for it, no matter how delicious it is. In addition, there are other sections that have been added to the bill, and you don't need to worry anymore about your children's wooden arrows being taxed at an exorbitant rate. One may argue that it passed through the Senate because only a portion of its members have to worry about re-election, which may or may not be the true reason. However, if one feels that this bill is overtly socialist, consider the opposition of Sen. Bernie Sanders, a self-described socialist, who describes the bailout as unfair.

Also, I would like to see the opinion polls that Americans are more confused than opposed to the bill. I'm sure Mike Shedlock would have something to say about that, in between falling asleep at his computer, leading the charge against this horrible piece of legislation.

For those who need this explained, one has the choice of either the illustrious Dr. Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty, or if you need to have it put into perspective with examples, this Opinion piece by Jonathan Weil is a must-read.

I wish that I could believe that this bailout is just an inefficient piece of legislation written in a system that didn't suffer from the systemic failings that went through Sweden's financial system in the 90's. But, even with, or should I say despite, the benefit of the experience of Sweden's former Finance Minister, the legislation is going forward in the worst way possible. When these banks are able to price these horrible pieces of financial wizardry that are currently befuddling their balance sheets at a price dictated by a former head of Goldman Sachs, the economic crisis will continue unabated, as the underlying fundmental economic problems remain. People will still be losing their jobs and inflation will be destroying the purchasing power of the dollars that are still being earned by those fortunate enough to have employment. This is a very dangerous game, with even more money being wasted on tax breaks that aren't substantiated in any significant way.

Victory for the American People

It hasn't been often in the last 7 plus years of the Bush Administration when one could truly say that the power of people defeated the people of power. When special interests took a back seat to those who really run the country, Mr. and Ms. Average. Since the bailout was originally announced, there have been numerous campaigns to stop it, academic disputes, and even the rarest of the rare, a public battle among the normally tightly disciplined Republican party. But, in the end, those who have to face up to the voters on November 4th realized that voting yes was potentially one of the biggest threats to their political careers, regardless of party. If you look at the list of how people voted in this historic vote, those on the 'yes' side will probably have a rough time of it, if not lose their seats to those who chose not to approve the still horrible re-negotiated version of the bailout proposal. In particular, I'm sure Dennis Kucinich (OH-10th) is feeling a little smug, knowing that he predicted the outcome of the vote.

On a slightly different note, I'm not sure why everyone in the world of pundits is characterizing this rejection of the bailout proposal a failure of governance. In common parlance, bills are said to have failed, but that is almost a bureaucratic term. In real terms, this bailout was an ideological battle between those who are in favor of and those who are against nationalization and similar bailouts in the United States. Moreover, this is not a vacuum of leadership in which the U.S. government is flying down a country road like a  '62 Corsair without a driver., as that has been happening for the last 7 years. 

Of course, in a vacuum, comes the punditry. Perhaps the most offensive piece I've read thus far about the political process that brought about this conclusion comes from Rupert Cornwell from the U.K.'s Independent. My favorite metaphor in the article compares the mechanisms of American democracy to Alice Through the Looking Glass. Putting that aside, though, the author clearly doesn't understand the huge popular backlash against the bailout. Sure, in the U.K. and other parliamentary democracies, the Prime Minister isn't approved by the people at large, but in the U.S. the leaders need to be especially accountable. And to say that the bill died in partisan sniveling is obviously disregarding what was essentially a bipartisan effort to keep the American people from having to shovel out $700 Billion or more on a plan that was only designed to correct the dangerous excesses of the richest segments of society. Perhaps, too, the American people have become wary of those who warn about apocalyptic disaster and offer a solution that meets a certain biased politican agenda. 

Kevin Connolly from the BBC, in looking at the reasons behind the bailouts defeat in the House of Representatives, expresses a strange sentiment, that after this bill's defeat and the sense of crisis that it engenders will offer a way out for the bailout proposal, that Main Street hasn't suffered yet. Unfortunately, the people of the United States have been suffering, which is the underlying cause for this economic crisis. With the inflationary impact of cheap money, combined with tepid job growth, primarily in the services sector since the recession of 2001, people were forced to choose between living and surviving, which meant that the mortgage had to go unpaid. Thus, in a trickle up fashion, the banks and other financial institutions, who were holders of arcane financial securities into which these poorly written mortgages were conglomerated, began to suffer the counsequences of their poor lending practices. I think Mr. Connolly underestimates the intelligence of Mr. and Ms. Average and their understanding of this situation, as Mr. or Ms. Average are probably already unemployed, underemployed, or facing the prospect of losing their job in the failing economy. 

From the campaign trail in Iowa, Sen. John McCain who, infamously, suspended his campaign to not show up in Washington for negotiations, has called upon Congress to return to the drawing board and to get back to work right away. Sen. Barack Obama, from a rally outside of Denver, called for calm, saying that things in Congress are never smooth, and instead of imploring or demanding that his colleagues work on the proposal to shore up the wealth of the financial sector, he used a baseball metaphor.  

So panic thus gripped the financial markets, and the Dow Jones suffered its worst lost ever in terms of points. But, have no fear for liquidity, because Helicopter Ben Bernanke has come to the rescue, increasing the amount of dollars in the global financial system by a whopping $630 Billion dollars. To show you a frightening graph that indicates inflation, perhaps even hyperinflation, is just around the corner, here is the Adjusted Monetary Base, courtesy of the St. Louis Federal Reserve. The highlight of a series of moves in the banking industry, Citigroup has purchased Wachovia, after the stock lost more than 80% in trading on Monday. 

I made you an economy but I broked it.

If any of you are regular readers you may be wondering why these last two weeks have gone without a posting on the economy. There are several reasons. First, our senior economic analyst, TheRedKap is still stuck behind the Great Firewall. Second, my political rage peaked about a year ago. After seven years of rising outrage at this administration I finally reached my limits and fizzled out somewhat.

I haven't been able to listen to Marketplace in almost a year so I have had to try and make sense of this stuff myself. Which is difficult for even economists to understand. If the voodoo priests of the dollar can't explain on whats going on, what hope does an average American have? Here is one thought I had yesterday which I hope is not so obvious that I appear foolish for taking the time to lay it out.

One economist yesterday likened the current $700 B...B...B...Billion Bailout to that scene from Blazing Saddles when Bart, played by Cleavon Little, holds a gun to his own head to keep the town from lynching him. Wall Street, here played by Henry Paulson, is holding the gun to its own head and saying they will pull the trigger if we don't save them from their own mistakes. That's pretty obvious but it's the first step. So, what caused this situation? Housing and real property values have risen astronomically bolstered by unfettered access to credit. People were given loans that they could never pay back and the sleaze bags that sold them these loans bunched them together to hide that they were bad investments and then gave them to ratings agency sleaze bags that told the whole world that this was some good shit. Then the poor people who were lied to about how much house they could afford in George Bush's "ownership society"start defaulting on their mortgages. Banks sit up and take notice and start forecasting falling profits and eventually losses and then admit that they don't know how many of these toxic mortgages are going to explode, but they have lots of em'. Opportunist investment bankers then short sell the stock of these banks. (Short selling is either complicated, or simple and commonplace depending on which economist you are talking to and their politics, but the basic explanation is investment bankers try to drive down the value of a stock in order to make a quick buck. They do this because they don't actually have jobs and don't contribute anything of value to society and can only destroy. Like little economic vampires in suspenders.)

So, you get to our current situation with overinflated housing values putting pressure on the markets because banks are so heavily invested in these things that aren't worth what they paid. Now they want the government, meaning the taxpayers, meaning you and me, to buy these worthless bundles of mortgages. They say this will set a bottom level price that they can always be sold to the government for, so that investors can never loose all the money they put into these mortgages, eliminating the mystery of whether the one they just bought will explode in their hands, thusly bolstering confidence in the market and loosening up credit so you and I can go back to buying 72" LCD TVs and leveraging our house to put a pool in our back yards. Thusly fueling the rampant over consumption that has fueled the economy.

Except maybe some of these banks should fail. Maybe an economy based on credit is inherently unstable. Maybe we shouldn't just go back to buying cheaply made garbage from overseas? Maybe these same people that have been pushing for deregulation and chanting the mantra of the free market, when suddenly faced with the terrifying face of the monster that is the free market, they let up a cry for socialism such that has not been heard since Lenin. These people who have played games with our retirement and destroyed the value of our employers and our homes want it both ways just as long as they don't have to feel the pinch. Analysts point out that CEO's of these failed banks are getting fired but mention golden parachutes to them and they begin to dissemble. It doesn't take an economics degree or an MBA to understand that if someone who made over a million dollars in income last year looses their job, they aren't going to loose their house or go hungry like the guy working down at the Ford plant in Cleveland, or the GM factory in Janesville. These guys on Wall Street are more out of touch with what middle class is then McCain. When was the last time an investment banker welded the bumper onto a car or pulled a ton of coal out of the Earth with only their sweat and muscle?

OK, I got distracted by class warfare there. Where does this $700 Bubble Burst Bailout Billion come from? It doesn't just come out of the ass of Johnny Taxpayer, it gets squeezed out of the value of the Dollar. What the markets and Paulson are asking congress to do is to transfer the overinflated value of housing and real property indirectly to the value of the dollar. Inflation. I am talking about inflation with a capital "I." The value of the dollar has been falling against other currencies over the course of this whole subprime crash and since commodities are pegged to the dollar it has fueled the rise in costs of oil and food and other basic essentials. So basically after destroying the value of our homes and companies, the Wall Street voodoo machine is going to destroy the value of our labor and the dollar. I think they are doing this because they know that their "labor" doesn't have any value.

Cleveland Ohio: Terrible American City, or the Worst American City?

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, Cleveland is the second poorest city after only Detroit Michigan. The downfall of both cities is linked and ongoing but at least Cleveland doesn't have a mayor under indictment for perjury. Local news outlets are trying to cut the sting of the numbers by pointing out that the same report states the average household income in Cleveland grew over the same period. What they either don't realize or are deliberately not saying is that this means the gap between the rich and the poor is widening at the expense of middle income families.

This is the kind of thing one would expect to see in a major urban center that is still experiencing flight of the middle class out of the city into the suburbs. It is also an increased threat to the American Dream. In a city where poverty is increasing and which has been hard hit by the collapse of the housing market it seems increasingly unlikely that this is a place where a working family can get a leg up and advance their financial standing. Which would explain why people are leaving the area.

All of these things combined cut down the tax base while increasing the demand on government services. This isn't just more people becoming a drain on the welfare state. It's vacant buildings becoming bastions of criminal behavior causing a drain on the under staffed police force. Those same vacant buildings are also a drain on the fire department due to arson, which increases response to emergencies and costs of investigation. Lastly, the city has to buy those buildings and demolish them creating costly legal work on top of paying out settlements to the banks that have foreclosed on these houses. The roads are in bad need of repair, and communities region wide have to replace their sewage systems because they violate clean water standards, spewing human waste into lake Erie. The steel industry is dead, but its rotting corpse is lying unburied across the rust belt of America.

Casual Observations

In my short time here in the great People's Republic of China, I have made one simple, yet probably overlooked, observation. In the U.S. before I left, every commercial outlet, ranging from department stores to shopping malls were offering deep discounts in an effort to support continued consumer spending. Here in Tianjin, the story is the same. Every outlet, regardless of place on the scale of value, is offering similar discounts. While this may just be a simple coincidence, it is at least anecdotal evidence of further economic problems if consumers are unwilling to assume their historic and necessary economic function. I would post a photo, but Google Images isn't cooperating here.

This, of course, is besides the worries of the larger financial institutions here in the PRC about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's balance sheet problems.

Cleveland Ohio: Terrible American City or the Worst American City

It seems like Forbes has its finger on the pulse of reality through just a few simple statistics. They looked at population change and some simple economics and come to the simple realization that there are city's that people are moving away from for good reasons. The mayor of Canton got all upset by his city being identified as one of those facing a rapid death. Its an attitude that I have encountered in Cleveland frequently. The residents of this terrible city have constructed their lives to avoid the worst parts of town and allow themselves to believe that it isn't that bad and act upset or surprised when they are told how awful the city is. As long as people are not only willing to accept how bad things are and get so upset when they are told how bad it really is, nothing will improve. Its like trying to convince an alcoholic friend they have a problem.

The Global Food Crisis: Too Much Water

Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, And Illinois have all been hit by massive flooding over the last week. Some heroic boyscouts have garnered all the press from this storm but there is another story with wider reaching implications. The flooding has caused damage to farmland across the nation's breadbasket, ruining thousands of acres of fields prior to harvest. These fields are primarily corn and as detailed in a prior posting, corn is the backbone of the U.S. comodoties market. Further, such a huge loss in corn will cause the prices of all foods to rise even more than the international food crisis has caused. The bottom line for you, expect to pay more for all kinds of meat, cerial, grains, milk, and of course, gasoline.

This all brings up the concept of inflation. The general rise in the price of goods as measured by the United States excludes the cost of comodities like food and energy(oil). The standard reason given for this is that even when the economy is stable the costs of oil and food fluctuate wildly and are thusly not directly pinned to the general economy. That reason turnes into a mere excuse to ignore bad news in times like these where inflation is being driven by world crisis level food prise increases and devistating growth in cost of oil. Yet economists will continue to use the old measure and more tellingly the old media will continue to parrot what they are told in their role of controling the public.

The Walk Of Shame: Gubinatorial Spending

The governors mansion in Texas was burned down, probably due to arson. This morning the Governor declared he would rebuild his mansion regardless of the cost to the people of Texas. It is interisting to me that a government official would vow to spare no expense in rebuilding his own mansion when there is a mortgage crisis going on now and millions of people are finding themselves homeless.

The World Food Crisis

The world food crisis entered the perception of the average American this week when Costco and Walmart started rationing rice. I came upon rice at half the market rate today in the grocery store and bought up the thirty pounds you see to the left. I also snapped up a gallon of vegtable oil since land used for rice has been converted to the palm oil cash crop and will rise in parity with rice.

The prices of all foods, and all comodities, are linked in this global economy. The staples Wheat, Rice, and Corn have all drasticly gone up in price over the last year. The rise is due to a number of factors that feed back on one another because of the global economy.

In the United States the farm lobby has pushed congress to invest in corn based ethanol. This created an incentive outside of the market for U.S. farmers to dedicate feilds that had been used for producing rice and wheat for food in the past, to corn, that is being burned for fuel. The President spoke of using switchgrass but the money has gone to corn. So this decreases supply of staple foods that the U.S. would otherwise export to the world. With the falling dollar our exports would be very attractive except the cost of rice is fixed to the dollar so it faces the pressures of inflation. The cost of fuel feeds back into the cost of food because of the energy used in transport and processing.

High Gas prices wouldn't effect the hungry as devistatingly if their own countries produced enough food to feed them. Then they wouldn't have to import the food they need from the U.S. Around the world farmer's decisions about what to plant have been influenced by the U.S. economy over the last few years. The black hole of ever increasing imports to America due to ample credit have encouraged foreign farmers to switch to cash crops. Farming has always been a poverty industry since the beginning of time and how can you begrudge an Egyptian farmer who chooses sugar over wheat when its ten times the price?

This global trend to switch to sugar and oil instead of rice and wheat, or poppys in Afghanistan, has driven world food supply even lower. But it has done so in a highly localized way. Major rice exporting countries have cut shipments to ensure they can feed their own people and the major rice importing countries now face a crisis where the whole supply thretans to go into the black market. When the bottom dropped out of the U.S. economy and the falling value of the dollar started an upward trend toward inflation the whole world suddenly realised they had been catering to U.S. luxury demands instead of feeding themselves.