Regional Federal Reserve Banks Think the Geithner-Bernanke-Summers Plan Is Failing the Real Economy

Torches on the right, and pitchforks on the left.

Have a happy Memorial Day weekend to all our readers in the States. US markets will be closed on Monday.

Perhaps a reminder that the freedom won by those who came before us at so dear a price should not be dealt away so easily out of fear and greed.

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate - we can not hallow - this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us - that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

CentralBankNews.com
Why the regional feds are up in arms
22 May 2009

A number of presidents of regional Federal Reserve banks and senior staff have recently expressed dissent from the official line taken by the US authorities in managing the banking crisis.

This development may surprise central bankers in other countries, used as they are to enforcing conformity among officials of their organisation to the official line. It would be astonishing, for example, if several governors of euro-area central banks were to suddenly challenge Jean-Claude Trichet's handling of the crisis or the crisis management policies of governments of euro member states. Collective responsibility and cover-ups are the watchwords in Europe.

The heads of the district fed banks are particularly concerned with the inequities and inefficiencies arising from official protection of banks deemed too big to fail.

Hoenig speaks out -

In April, Tom Hoenig, president of the Kansas City Fed, said that actions that had been taken in an attempt to protect the largest US institutions from failure risked "prolonging the crisis and increasing its cost."

Support for firms considered too big to fail had provided them with a competitive advantage and subsidised their growth with taxpayer funds. They were, he said, not only too big but also "too complex and too politically influential to supervise on a sustained basis without a clear set of rules constraining their actions."

To those who might be surprised at such forthright criticism from a senior official, he reminded his listeners that the 12 regional banks were set up by Congress "specifically to address the populist outcry against concentrated power on Wall Street." He added: "Its structure reflects the system of checks and balances that serves us well at all levels of government, and it is the reason I am here today able to express an alternative view."

- Lacker protests

A few weeks later another senior Federal Reserve official also asserted that the implicit guarantee that the government would step in and save those institutions deemed too big to fail was a key cause of the current economic malaise.

Speaking at the Asian Banker Summit in Beijing on 11 May, Jeffrey Lacker, president of the Richmond Fed, said that the existence of the financial safety net created incentives for too-big-to-fail institutions to pay little attention to some of the biggest risks.

"Their tendency to underprice such risk exposures reduces market participants' incentive to prepare against and prevent the liquidity disruptions that are financial crises, thus increasing the likelihood of crises."

It was, Lacker said, "worth noting that some large firms that appear to have benefited from implicit safety-net support were heavily involved in the securitisation of risky mortgages."

Lacker said that the implicit belief that some institutions were too big to fail had built up over the years in response to a series of events and government actions involving large financial institutions.

- and Stern maintains his criticism

Gary Stern, the president of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve has also been a vociferous critic of the Fed's bank bailouts. Writing with Ron Feldman, the senior vice president for supervision, regulation and credit at the Minneapolis Fed, for a book entitled Towards a New Framework for Financial Stability (published by Central Banking Publications), Stern said that the Fed was right to come to Bear's rescue, but criticised the decision to expand its safety net as "not subtle or implied." "Uninsured creditors of other large financial firms may now have heightened expectations of receiving government support if these firms get into trouble," he said.

More recently, in a statement to the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban affairs on 6 May, Stern returned to the subject: "If policymakers do not address TBTF [too big to fail], the United States will likely endure an inefficient financial system, slower economic growth, and lower living standards than otherwise would be the case."

Gary Stern is retiring as he turns 65 in a few months, the mandatory retirement age for senior officials in the reserve banks.

Contrary to public perception, the 12 regional Fed banks are not government agencies. Nor are they private banks. Each is owned by member commercial banks.

Crony Capitalism and Incompetence Doom Obama Economic Plans Says Nobel Laureate

Nothing you have not heard here before, and frequently.

But this is a Nobel Prize winner in Economics saying it, and a Democratic appointee to boot.

"The people who designed the plans are either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent."

That sounds like Larry Summers and Tim Geithner in a nutshell to us.

Joe Stiglitz is assuming that Crew Obama really WANT to fix the economy and serve their nation. It seems possible that, being out of power for so many years, the Democratic leaders are handing out favors to their campaign contributors and feathering their nests for the future.

Then they'll worry about the public welfare. Political reform, Chicago-style.

The banks must be restrained, and the financial system must be reformed, before there can be any meaningful recovery in the real economy.


Bloomberg
Stiglitz Says Ties to Wall Street Doom Bank Rescue
By Michael McKee and Matthew Benjamin

April 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration’s bank rescue efforts will probably fail because the programs have been designed to help Wall Street rather than create a viable financial system, Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said.

“All the ingredients they have so far are weak, and there are several missing ingredients,” Stiglitz said in an interview yesterday. The people who designed the plans are “either in the pocket of the banks or they’re incompetent.” (That pretty much covers Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, respectively - Jesse)

The Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, isn’t large enough to recapitalize the banking system, and the administration hasn’t been direct in addressing that shortfall, he said. Stiglitz said there are conflicts of interest at the White House because some of Obama’s advisers have close ties to Wall Street.

“We don’t have enough money, they don’t want to go back to Congress, and they don’t want to do it in an open way and they don’t want to get control” of the banks, a set of constraints that will guarantee failure, Stiglitz said.

The return to taxpayers from the TARP is as low as 25 cents on the dollar, he said. “The bank restructuring has been an absolute mess.”

Rather than continually buying small stakes in banks, the government should put weaker banks through a receivership where the shareholders of the banks are wiped out and the bondholders become the shareholders, using taxpayer money to keep the institutions functioning, he said. (Personally I'd give the bondholders a very high and tight haircut - Jesse)

Nobel Prize

Stiglitz, 66, won the Nobel in 2001 for showing that markets are inefficient when all parties in a transaction don’t have equal access to critical information, which is most of the time. His work is cited in more economic papers than that of any of his peers, according to a February ranking by Research Papers in Economics, an international database....

Bailing Out Investors

“You’re really bailing out the shareholders and the bondholders,” he said. “Some of the people likely to be involved in this, like Pimco, are big bondholders,” he said, referring to Pacific Investment Management Co., a bond investment firm in Newport Beach, California.

Stiglitz said taxpayer losses are likely to be much larger than bank profits from the PPIP program even though Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair has said the agency expects no losses.

“The statement from Sheila Bair that there’s no risk is absurd,” he said, because losses from the PPIP will be borne by the FDIC, which is funded by member banks.

Andrew Gray, an FDIC spokesman, said Bair never said there would be no risk, only that the agency had “zero expected cost” from the program.

Redistribution

“We’re going to be asking all the banks, including presumably some healthy banks, to pay for the losses of the bad banks,” Stiglitz said. “It’s a real redistribution and a tax on all American savers.”

Stiglitz was also concerned about the links between White House advisers and Wall Street. Hedge fund D.E. Shaw & Co. paid National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, a managing director of the firm, more than $5 million in salary and other compensation in the 16 months before he joined the administration. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank.

“America has had a revolving door. People go from Wall Street to Treasury and back to Wall Street,” he said. “Even if there is no quid pro quo, that is not the issue. The issue is the mindset.”
Stiglitz was head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers under President Bill Clinton before serving from 1997 to 2000 as chief economist at the World Bank. He resigned from that post in 2000 after repeatedly clashing with the White House over economic policies it supported at the International Monetary Fund. He is now a professor at Columbia University.

Critical of Stimulus

Stiglitz was also critical of Obama’s other economic rescue programs.

He called the $787 billion stimulus program necessary but “flawed” because too much spending comes after 2009, and because it devotes too much of the money to tax cuts “which aren’t likely to work very effectively.”

“It’s really a peculiar policy, I think,” he said. (Peculiar? Perhaps he meant the odor. - Jesse)

The $75 billion mortgage relief program, meanwhile, doesn’t do enough to help Americans who can’t afford to make their monthly payments, he said. It doesn’t reduce principal, doesn’t make changes in bankruptcy law that would help people work out debts, and doesn’t change the incentive to simply stop making payments once a mortgage is greater than the value of a house.

Stiglitz said the Fed, while it’s done almost all it can to bring the country back from the worst recession since 1982, can’t revive the economy on its own.

Relying on low interest rates to help put a floor under housing prices is a variation on the policies that created the housing bubble in the first place, Stiglitz said. (You got that right Joe - Jesse)

Recreating Bubble

“This is a strategy trying to recreate that bubble,” he said. “That’s not likely to provide a long-run solution. It’s a solution that says let’s kick the can down the road a little bit.” (They have been kicking this cow pie down the road for so long we're almost at the edge of the world - Jesse)

While the strategy might put a floor under housing prices, it won’t do anything to speed the recovery, he said. “It’s a recipe for Japanese-style malaise.”

Even with rates low, banks may not lend because they remain wary of market or borrower risk, and in the current environment “there’s still a lot of risk.” That’s why even with all of the programs the Fed and the administration have opened, lending is still very limited, Stiglitz said.

“They haven’t thought enough about the determinants of the flow of credit and lending.”

The Obama Team's Economic Performance Is Pathetic

Wouldn't it be nice if one day the Obama Administration came up with a change, an innovative reform for the financial system that made us sit back and say, "Wow, that's great! That's exactly what we have been looking for."

So far it has been one misstep, one fumble, one tired old Henny Youngman routine after another. The Clinton Administration retread meets the road, and falls apart.

Things went badly beginning with the appointment of Larry Summers as key economic advisor.

Larry was one of the three man miracle team of Greenspan, Rubin and Summers that turned the Asian monetary crisis into the tech bubble after a smoke and mirrors economic recovery while the industrial base of the US continued to slide into the Pacific.

We have seen nothing that speaks of the promise that we felt when America said "enough" and voted for a change in the fall of 2008.

And after the Summers disappointment we received the the Rubin protege, Tim Geithner, with the thinnest of financial backgrounds, who while at the NY Fed helped to help transform the housing bubble collapse into the bailout bust.

His position at Treasury is such an obvious, glaring mismatch that he cannot even staff key jobs in his own department. Who would want to work under such an obvious, embarrassing failure?

This is not a poor performance. This is an abject, incompetent inability to address the most critical issue facing this country.

This is Obama's Iraq: a morass of crippling failure brought on by horrible advice from key advisors with their own agendas.

President Obama throws rhetoric at the problem from a distance, like he is still campaigning against something. He leaves the impression of a more articulate Bush, inspiring no lasting confidence, giving no impression that he is in charge, on top of the situation, in control with a well thought out plan. He can make you feel good while he is speaking, then reality sets in and you realize that there is nothing there. Where are the management skills to back up the rhetoric?

Don't get us wrong. This is still early in the game. But the Democrats are losing the early rounds, as the situation grows more dire.

Well, Mr. Obama, you are President now, and even though you have only a short time in the office, so far you have shown us nothing. Your shepherding of a stimulus bill through the Congress was a nightmare, made worse by Nancy Pelosi who is a mediocre House Speaker at best, but appears a dynamo in comparison to Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Tired old solutions, inbred beltway thinking, old boy insider dealing.

Embarrassing. Unworthy. Amateurish. Pathetic.

You are failing, and we see it, and the anger, and sense of quiet panic, is building.

Time to get serious, to get it together. Time to step up to the job and take command. Time to show us your best stuff, find the levers, roll up your sleeves, and step down from the pulpit.

AIG: A Scandal of Epic Proportion

"Goldman Sachs had said in the past that its exposure to A.I.G.’s financial trouble was 'immaterial'."

It appears that it was immaterial because Goldman Sachs, through their ex-CEO Hank Paulso, had set things up so they could not lose on their counterparty risk.

This story from last September documents Goldman Sachs involvement, at the highest levels, in the AIG bailout with then Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.

AIG: A Blind Eye to Risk - NYT Sept 28, 2008

It seems fairly obviously that a relatively small department within AIG, the Financial Products division, was operating under the regulatory radar and was used as a patsy by a number of the Wall Street banks, who had no worries about losses because of their power to obtain the US government as a backstop to losses.

This is a scandal of epic proportion. 'Outrage' barely manages to express the appropriate reaction.

Obama is an educated, intelligent President, and can hardly retreat behind the clueless buffoon defense in vogue with so many CEO's and public officials. He has a directly responsible for this outcome now along with the Bush Administration and the Republicans.

Geithner and Summers should resign over their handling of AIG.

The Fed has no business regulating anything more complex than a checking account.

The difficulty with which we are faced is that despite their mugging for the camera and emotional words the Democrats and Republicans are owned by Wall Street and Big Business because of the existing system of lobbying and campaign funding.

Getting behind a third party for president is symbolic but ineffective. Giving a significant number of congressional seats to a third party will send a chilling and practical message to both the President and the Congress that enough is enough.

And in the meantime--

Contact Your Elected Officials


NY Times
A.I.G. Lists the Banks to Which It Paid Rescue Funds
By MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
March 16, 2009

Amid rising pressure from Congress and taxpayers, the American International Group on Sunday released the names of dozens of financial institutions that benefited from the Federal Reserve’s decision last fall to save the giant insurer from collapse with a huge rescue loan.

Financial companies that received multibillion-dollar payments owed by A.I.G. include

Goldman Sachs ($12.9 billion),
Merrill Lynch ($6.8 billion),
Bank of America ($5.2 billion),
Citigroup ($2.3 billion) and
Wachovia ($1.5 billion).

Big foreign banks also received large sums from the rescue, including

Société Générale of France and
Deutsche Bank of Germany, which each received nearly $12 billion;

Barclays of Britain ($8.5 billion); and
UBS of Switzerland ($5 billion).

A.I.G. also named the 20 largest states, starting with California, that stood to lose billions last fall because A.I.G. was holding money they had raised with bond sales.

In total, A.I.G. named nearly 80 companies and municipalities that benefited most from the Fed rescue, though many more that received smaller payments were left out.

The list, long sought by lawmakers, was released a day after the disclosure that A.I.G. was paying out hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses to executives at the A.I.G. division where the company’s crisis originated. That drew anger from Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike on Sunday and left the Obama administration scrambling to distance itself from A.I.G.

“There are a lot of terrible things that have happened in the last 18 months, but what’s happened at A.I.G. is the most outrageous,” Lawrence H. Summers, an economic adviser to President Obama who was Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, said Sunday on “This Week” on ABC. He said the administration had determined that it could not stop the bonuses.

(Among the outrages was the appointment of that sly old fox Larry Summers and his sidekick Tim Geithner by President Obama, and their continued tenure in any so-called reform government. - Jesse)

But some members of Congress expressed outrage over the bonuses. Representative Elijah E. Cummings, a Democrat of Maryland who had demanded more information about the bonuses last December, accused the company’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, of rewarding reckless business practices. (Well duh, that was and is the modus operandi of Wall Street Congressman - Jesse)

“A.I.G. has been trying to play the American people for fools by giving nearly $1 billion in bonuses by the name of retention payments,” Mr. Cummings said on Sunday. “These payments are nothing but a reward for obvious failure, and it is an egregious offense to have the American taxpayers foot the bill.” (Hey I have a good idea, lets elect some officials to make the laws and prevent these outrages through regulation. Oh yeah we did. Its you Congress! Its you Obama - Jesse)

An A.I.G. spokeswoman said Sunday that the company would not identify the recipients of these bonuses, citing privacy obligations.

Ever since the insurer’s rescue began, with the Fed’s $85 billion emergency loan last fall, there have been demands for a full public accounting of how the money was used. The taxpayer assistance has now grown to $170 billion, and the government owns nearly 80 percent of the company.

But the insurance giant has refused until now to disclose the names of its trading partners, or the amounts they received, citing business confidentiality.

A.I.G. finally relented after consulting with the companies that received the government support. The company’s chief executive, Edward M. Liddy, said in a statement on Sunday: “Our decision to disclose these transactions was made following conversations with the counterparties and the recognition of the extraordinary nature of these transactions.” (How about the threat of subpoena from the Attorney General? - Jesse)

Still, the disclosure is not likely to calm the ire aimed at the company and its trading partners.

The Fed chairman, Ben S. Bernanke, appearing on “60 Minutes” on CBS on Sunday night, said: “Of all the events and all of the things we’ve done in the last 18 months, the single one that makes me the angriest, that gives me the most angst, is the intervention with A.I.G.” (Considering you are presiding over the looting of the middle class, Ben my man, that speaks volumes - Jesse)

He went on: “Here was a company that made all kinds of unconscionable bets. Then, when those bets went wrong, they had a — we had a situation where the failure of that company would have brought down the financial system.” (AIG was a setup with the very banks, Goldman Sachs and crew, that you are bending our economy over backwards to save, Ben - Jesse)

In deciding to rescue A.I.G., the government worried that if it did not bail out the company, its collapse could lead to a cascading chain reaction of losses, jeopardizing the stability of the worldwide financial system.

The list released by A.I.G. on Sunday, detailing payments made between September and December of last year, could bolster that justification by illustrating the breadth of losses that might have occurred had A.I.G. been allowed to fail.

Some of the companies, like Goldman Sachs and Société Générale, had exposure mainly through A.I.G.’s derivatives program. Others, though, like Barclays and Citigroup, stood to lose mainly because they were customers of A.I.G.’s securities-lending program, which does not involve derivatives. (There ought to have been the managed unwinding and default on those derivatives - Jesse)

But taxpayers may have a hard time accepting that so many marquee financial companies — including some American banks that received separate government help and others based overseas — benefiting from government money.

The outrage that has been aimed at A.I.G. could complicate the Obama administration’s ability to persuade Congress to authorize future bailouts. (I would hope so. Obama has lost all credibility compliments of Geithner, Summers and Bernanke - Jesse)

Patience with the company’s silence began to run out this month after it disclosed the largest loss in United States history and had to get a new round of government support. Members of Congress demanded in two hearings to know who was benefiting from the bailout and threatened to vote against future bailouts for anybody if they did not get the information.

“A.I.G.’s trading partners were not innocent victims here,” said Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who presided over one recent hearing. “They were sophisticated investors who took enormous, irresponsible risks.” (Do something about it then you windbag - Jesse)

The anger peaked over the weekend when correspondence surfaced showing that A.I.G. was on the brink of paying rich bonuses to executives who had dealt in the derivative contracts at the center of A.I.G.’s troubles.

Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, implicitly questioned the Treasury Department’s judgment about the whether the bonuses were binding. (I would question if Barney Frank is competent to hold office since he has also been a key player - Jesse)

“We need to find out whether these bonuses are legally recoverable,” Mr. Frank said in an interview Sunday on Fox News.

Many of the institutions that received the Fed payments were owed money by A.I.G. because they had bought its credit derivatives — in essence, a type of insurance intended to protect buyers should their investments turn sour.

As it turned out, many of their investments did sour, because they were linked to subprime mortgages and other shaky loans. But A.I.G. was suddenly unable to honor its promises last fall, leaving its trading partners exposed to potentially big losses.

When A.I.G. received its first rescue loan of $85 billion from the Fed, in September, it forwarded about $22 billion to the companies holding its shakiest derivatives contracts. Those contracts required large collateral payments if A.I.G.’s credit was downgraded, as it was that month.

Among the beneficiaries of the government rescue were Wall Street firms, like Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Merrill Lynch that had argued in the past that derivatives were valuable risk-management tools that skilled investors could use wisely without any intervention from federal regulators. Initiatives to regulate financial derivatives were beaten back during the administrations of Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Goldman Sachs had said in the past that its exposure to A.I.G.’s financial trouble was “immaterial.” A Goldman Sachs representative was not reachable on Sunday to address whether that characterization still held. When asked about its exposure to A.I.G. in the past, Goldman Sachs has said that it used hedging strategies with other investments to reduce its exposure.

Until last fall’s liquidity squeeze, A.I.G. officials also dismissed those who questioned its derivatives operation, saying losses were out of the question.

Edmund L. Andrews and Jackie Calmes contributed reporting.

The Banking Crisis: Obama's Iraq Part 2

It is hard to assess who among the current DC crew are more limp when it comes to addressing the banking crisis in a meaningful and effective manner: Geithner, Summers or Bernanke.

They are all the very picture of the bureaucrat, which is a nice way of saying "systemic hacks." Have Timmy and Ben have reached their level of incompetency? Larry Summers has far exceededed his some years ago at Harvard.

It is difficult ground when one speculates on motives, but these are all rather bright fellows, albeit creatures nurtured by the system that they serve. It is hard to accept that their inability to address our financial crisis is sheer incompetency. But for now they obtain the benefit of doubt and the CEO's defense made so popular by the Enron crowd.

We wonder how bad it will get before Obama understands that his team is not working, that they have no actionable vision among them for whatever combination of reasons, and that the corruption being perpetuated is starting to stick rather handily to the Democrats.

The banking crisis is starting to look like Obama's Iraq.


Bloomberg
Hoenig Says Treasury Failed to Take ‘Decisive’ Action on Banks
By Steve Matthews and Vivien Lou Chen

March 6 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Treasury has failed to take “decisive” action to address the bank crisis, pursuing an ad- hoc approach that leaves management in place and avoids necessary asset writedowns, a veteran Federal Reserve official said.

“If an institution’s management has failed the test of the marketplace, these managers should be replaced,” Fed Bank of Kansas City President Thomas Hoenig said in prepared remarks for a speech in Omaha, Nebraska. “They should not be given public funds and then micro-managed, as we are now doing” with “a set of political strings attached.”

Hoenig’s comments are the most detailed criticism of the Treasury’s actions by a Fed official since the financial crisis began. By contrast, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke has endorsed the approaches taken by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his predecessor.

Geithner is requiring a “stress test” for the largest 19 U.S. banks to determine if they need more capital. He has stressed that nationalization isn’t the goal.

Last week, the U.S. government moved to convert some of the preferred stock it owned in Citigroup Inc. to common shares, gaining a 36 percent stake in the company and boosting Citigroup’s buffer against future losses. While authorities pushed for changes to the makeup of Citigroup’s board, Chief Executive Officer Vikram Pandit remains at the helm.

Hoenig said while policy makers “understandably” want to avoid nationalizing banks, “We nevertheless are drifting into a situation where institutions are being nationalized piecemeal with no resolution of the crisis.”

The Treasury’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program “began without a clear set of principles and has proceeded with what seems to be an ad-hoc and less-than-transparent approach,” Hoenig said today.

Banking regulators need to be willing to write down losses, bring in new managers and sell off businesses if institutions can’t survive on their own, “no matter what their size,” said Hoenig, the second-longest serving of the Fed district bank presidents, after Minneapolis’s Gary Stern.

"The Worst Is Yet to Come" With Tim and Larry

Howard Davidowitz is one of the best retail industry analysts available. It is always worth listening to him. His outlook on the broader macro level, based on consumer activity, is depressingly gloomy.

The gloomy long-term Depression outlook becoming so popularly accepted that we find ourselves rebelling against it. Perhaps unjustifiably so.

It will come down to what the Obama Administration does about the Banks. If the big Wall Street banks are allowed to absorb the capital vitality of the economy and limp along as insolvent zombies it is highly possible that we will have our own 'lost decade' like the Japanese experience.

Larry Summers is in command as the economic advisor with young Tim as his minion. We can barely imagine the infighting that must be going on between the practical politicos around Obama, probably led by Rahm Emanuel, who must be simply frothing at the boneheaded policy blunders that Geithner and Summers are creating.

A chart of W's popularity shows a decided peak just after 911, and then a steady decline into political oblivion and one of the worst popularity ratings in modern presidential history. It is now being revealed that there was a feeling in the White House that Cheney and Rumsfeld misled the president and cost him, dearly. W became very cool and detached with Cheney and his circle in the last two years, He ignored personal pleas to pardon Cheney's man, Scooter.

There is a real possibility that Larry Summers and Tim Geithner could be the spoilers for Obama despite the enormous wave of popular support which he enjoys today. Betting on the over/under, we suspect that eventually Rahm will put him in a political body bag, with Larry providing plenty of personal assistance in his own demise. But that's just an opinion and it could be wrong. Their failure is definitely not in the best interests of the country. Here is a similar opinion.

Fool Me Once Geithner, Shame on You, Fool Me Twice...

And now for a stiff dose of reality which is even too gloomy for our tastes but may be correct from Howard Davidowitz:


Howard Davidowitz Video Interview

"Worst Is Yet to Come:" Americans' Standard of Living Permanently Changed
by Aaron Task
Feb 17, 2009 12:53pm EST

There's no question the American consumer is hurting in the face of a burst housing bubble, financial market meltdown and rising unemployment.

But "the worst is yet to come," according to Howard Davidowitz, chairman of Davidowitz & Associates, who believes American's standard of living is undergoing a "permanent change" - and not for the better as a result of:

- An $8 trillion negative wealth effect from declining home values.
- A $10 trillion negative wealth effect from weakened capital markets.
- A $14 trillion consumer debt load amid "exploding unemployment", leading to "exploding bankruptcies."

"The average American used to be able to borrow to buy a home, send their kids to a good school [and] buy a car," Davidowitz says. "A lot of that is gone."

Going forward, the veteran retail industry consultant foresees higher savings rate and people trading down in both the goods and services they buy - as well as their aspirations.

The end of rampant consumerism is ultimately a good thing, he says, but the unraveling of an economy built on debt-fueled spending will be painful for years to come.

Coming Next Week to an Imploding Economy Near You...

Without serious reform we will repeat the cycle of bubble, boom, and bust until the economy is shaken apart into civil disorder and re-emerges in proto-fascism.