Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Brad DeLong on Nationalization

Time Not for a Bailout, But for Nationalization...

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2008/09/time-not-for-a.html

Nationalization has the best chance of avoiding large losses and possibly even making money for the taxpayer. And it is the best way to deal with the moral hazard problem.

It might work like this. Congress:

  • grants the Federal Reserve Board the power to take any financial firm whatsoever with liabilities and capital of more than $25 billion that is not well capitalized into conservatorship

  • requires the Federal Reserve Board to liquidate any financial firm in its conservatorship when it judges that the firm is insolvent (paying off in full or not paying off in full the liabilities of the firm at its discretion), unless

  • the Federal Reserve Board finds that preservation as a going concern is in the interest of the taxpayer, in which case Congress

  • grants the Federal Reserve Board the power to transform equity stakes in the firm into junior preferred stock at par value and then transfer ownership and custody of the firm to the Treasury

  • requires the Federal Reserve to terminate conservatorship if the firm becomes well-capitalized once again.


In addition, Congress:

  • grants the Treasury the power to issue up to $500 billion of troubled asset redemption bonds, the proceeds of which are then to be loaned to the Federal Reserve to be used to cover the liabilities of those liquidated firms that the Federal Reserve judges it is in the interest of the taxpayer to have their liabilities paid off in full.


Paulson had his shot. It's time for the Democrats to pass a nationalization in the taxpayers' interest bill and dare Bush to veto it. If he does, then announce that the congress will pass it again the day after the election. And if he vetoes it again, announce that congress will pass it yet again on January 21, 2009.

-----

Comment: As DeLong notes, we want to avoid doing nothing and allowing fear to freeze liquidity. My only concern is that he doesn't seem to be distinguishing between any of the many types of financial firms. I guess he's seeing them all as a kind of public good no matter their particular stripe.

What I also like about his idea is that is avoids the poison pill as discussed below and regains political clout for those proffering this kind of sensible plan. It could be the Democrats if they have any brains.

::rolls eyes::

Monday, September 29, 2008

Losers Take All

Big Financiers Start Lobbying for Wider Aid

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/business/22lobby.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

Even as policy makers worked on details of a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, Wall Street began looking for ways to profit from it.

Financial firms were lobbying to have all manner of troubled investments covered, not just those related to mortgages.

At the same time, investment firms were jockeying to oversee all the assets that Treasury plans to take off the books of financial institutions, a role that could earn them hundreds of millions of dollars a year in fees.

Nobody wants to be left out of Treasury’s proposal to buy up bad assets of financial institutions.

-----

“Is this the United States Congress or the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs?” Rep. Dennis Kucinich Rejects $700 Billion Bailout

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/29/is_this_the_united_states_congress

This is a copy of the bill which will provide for a $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. It has provisions in it where it talks about helping homeowners, but when you read the fine print, you see it has language like “may” instead of “shall” and “encouraging” instead of “mandating” help for the millions of homeowners who are worried right now about whether they’re going to lose their home. There’s no help for them in this.
...
So what we have here is a rescue plan that essentially gives all the speculators a bailout and puts the bad debts in the custody of the government. The president of the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank has said that this plan could create a fiscal chasm, says that the problem isn’t tight monetary policy, it’s the reckless behavior of some of these investors who have now found themselves in a position where a government bailout is going to help reward their bad behavior.
...
Well, you know, that implies that you would accept the underlying premise. I reject the underlying premise that we needed this bill. And as a matter of fact, that we’re putting this up before an adjournment in an election season shows that Congress is being put under extraordinary pressure to bail out Wall Street. We haven’t looked at any alternatives, Amy. This is—you know, it isn’t as though, if you had a liquidity crisis, that—you know, a real one—that you’d start to look at all the alternatives. We haven’t done that. We have a bill here, a bill of more than a hundred pages, that we haven’t had a single hearing on the bill, you know—on the concept, yes, on what Paulson and Bernanke asked for initially. But, you know, we need to have hearings on this. There’s 400 economists and three Nobel Prize-winning economists who have said, “Whoa, wait a minute! What are you doing? Why are you rushing this?” You know, this thing doesn’t smell right, frankly.
...
I said we’re the Congress of the United States; we’re not the board of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs is struggling to survive. And, you know, their former chief is now the head of the US Treasury. He’s in a position to be able to direct assets in a way that would help enhance his own financial standing. I mean, that’s a clear conflict of interest. And, you know, that’s something that needs to be said. You know, why are we permitting the person who has essentially been in a position where he’s managed assets that—you know, many of which are now in trouble, and he can come back and help clear the books for a lot of his friends? This is wrong. It’s fundamentally wrong. And, you know, it’s one of the things that adds a degree of stench to this.
...
Well, there’s many ways that you can stimulate the economy. One is that you can have massive infrastructure spending. You could get that started right away. It would have to go far beyond what Congress passed the other day. If you want to spend money into circulation and move the money in the economy, you can do that through spending on things that are tangible: bridges, water systems, sewer system. You can stimulate the economy by having a national healthcare plan. I mean, that would take a little bit longer to set up, but that would be a huge break for all these businesses that are having difficulties.
...
Well, you know, the word “oversight” has new meaning here. You know, oversight could mean “I overlooked something.” And frankly, the Securities and Exchange Commission looked the other way while all these—all this fast-paced trading was going in derivatives and derivatives of derivatives. We have about a four—$500 trillion, almost a half a quadrillion dollars of derivatives floating out there that no one really understands how that’s going to affect the underlying economy when some of these things start imploding.
...
You know, I think that—I think we’re looking at a situation here where it is precisely the lack of regulation and the lack of oversight by the administration that has caused this. Congress is going to have hearings next month, but frankly, we should be having hearings now, before we pass a bill. I mean, it’s just upside-down that you have hearings about the underlying problem after you pass a bill, because you have hearings first, you do the analysis, and then you come up with a fix that can protect investors, strengthen the economy.
...
We need to challenge again the underlying assumptions about a debt-based economy, about whether or not we should revisit the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which has an unfortunately privatized monetary system and created a system which includes banks having the ability to create money almost out of thin air with a fractional reserve. We have to look at the implications of that, maybe put the Federal Reserve under the Treasury and have the Treasury really be responsive to the interests of the American people and keeping the economy going.

-----

I see those that want to take and how they will keep taking. Remember how Warren Buffett wanted in on the action? Here is more of the same.

And then I see Kucinich - who is normally derided as a UFO-freak - as one of the few that is making any sense whatever. But his political clout has been completely marginalized. Kucinich's presidential candidacy was of real interest me. So, of course, he didn't have a bloody prayer.

I'm with the seers of moonbeams...

Right-Center-Left. Oh, Wait - there is no left!

You know, I communicate with people from many walks of life via the internet. One of the things that surprises me constantly is the jingoistic adherence to words like "Leftist," or "Marxist" or even phrases like "they hate America." One usually hears this kind of thing from "dittoheads" that listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and mistake his brand of entertainment for the facts of things.

Well, I'd like to set the record straight on something about American politics: there is no left. What socialist aspects of American government there are exist as the only checks in a system heavily tilted in favor of wild west style capitalism. And with the bailout being contemplated you can see where that leads: corporate welfare at the highest levels and at the most offensive cost.

The Grand Old Party is certainly the right. Their's is the party of corporate cock-sucking fascism. The Democrats actually take the center position. From an international perspective, I'd say the Democrats were actually just right of center and not the true middle. At the possible left are the many disenfranchised, tiny political groups that represent more progressive viewpoints. Many of these fractious splinter groups maintain what would on an international scale be seen as left positions, but they also do not collectively represent any kind of coherent left. The views of such people are rarely if ever discussed in major media nor are their views any significant part of public debate. In our two party system, with one group at the right and the other group near the center it's absurd to talk about the center group as being the "left." The Democrats are hardly Marxist, socialists, nor do they appear to hate America any more so than the Republicans who have of late been so willing to decimate our Constitutional safeguards.

I mean sure, as compared to the extreme right - anything left of that position is to the left, but that doesn't make it thee left. See what I mean? Simply being left of fascism might be a perfectly reasonable, non-leftist viewpoint.

There is no left in American politics, none that matters at any rate.

What we really have is fascism and near-fascism.

No Deal #2!

This is the bit that interested me most:

-----

Republicans blamed Pelosi's scathing speech near the close of the debate - which attacked Bush's economic policies and a "right-wing ideology of anything goes, no supervision, no discipline, no regulation" of financial markets - for the vote's failure.

"We could have gotten there today had it not been for the partisan speech that the speaker gave on the floor of the House," Minority Leader John Boehner said. Pelosi's words, the Ohio Republican said, "poisoned our conference, caused a number of members that we thought we could get, to go south."

Source: http://news.wired.com/dynamic/stories/F/FINANCIAL_MELTDOWN?SITE=WIRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2008-09-29-15-07-56

-----

Comment: So this supposedly monumentally important bailout can be postponed for more political posturing. Is that right? I thought we were in panic mode - that we had to do something right the fuck NOW, as in TODAY!

Remember about what I said about the Rethugs backing away from this as if it were radioactive? They are doing it again - they caused the situation, and now want the Democrats to have to take the blame for the fix.

This was caused by deregulation. "Free markets" have never existed, nor should they. Banks and financial markets must be heavily regulated in the future. Did we learn nothing from the S&L scandal of so many years ago?

WTF, people. Wake up and smell the social democracy!


P.S. The news article I link to above was altered during the time I first saw it and the time I posted about it. I am sticking to my version above.

Kaptur Brings the Pain

I don't know much about her, but I do like her comments in these two videos:

They Want Mama to Make It All Better!


Sounds Like Insider Trading to Me!

Main Street First: The Failure of Our Republic

[Video Link] from ANP:
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1463341016?bctid=1822459290

Doubtless the fix is in. I am hearing that the bill is sure to be passed in some newly revised and newly idiotic form.

The people are getting pissed off. We'll see how long that lasts before the media massages away all fear, uncertainty, and doubt with calming messages about beauty aids, soda pop and other un-foods, sexy blonds and endless sports news.

More later...

Saturday, September 27, 2008

The Law is Class War

In discussing the new bankruptcy laws in 2005, Prez Bush stated the following:

"America is a nation of personal responsibility where people are expected to meet their obligations."

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/04/20050420-5.html

It's fascinating to consider that statement as we consider the proposed Wall Street bailout plan and the many millionaires and billionaires with their hands out. Despite widespread voter opposition our legislators continue to claim that the proposal will pass in one form or another very shortly. How is this not legalized robbery? If every American is on the hook for a minimum of $2000, how is this not socialism for the highest economic class forced upon the lowest classes by distraint? They have the cages, the implements of steel, the guns, the jar-headed thugs to put you in your place and to force conformity with the prescriptions of the law.