What Then Is Your Point, Mr. Potter?

"The more people rationalize cheating, the more it becomes a culture of dishonesty. And that can become a vicious, downward cycle. Because suddenly, if everyone else is cheating, you feel a need to cheat, too."

Stephen Covey, The Speed of Trust

"The greatest crimes of human history are made possible by the most colorless human beings. They are the careerists. The bureaucrats. The cynics. They do the little chores that make vast, complicated systems of exploitation and death a reality... And they do not ask questions."

Chris Hedges, The Careerists

 

If, as Jamie Galbraith has put it, economics is 'a disgraced profession,' what does it matter, when almost all the professions from medicine to law to finance have also given themselves over to the darkness of this world in high places?

 

Can they be so aloof that they do not see it, see what they are becoming?  See what they serve?

Are they such bystanders that they can no longer even see themselves and where they stand?

Can such a lack of self-awareness be attributed to the blindness of egoism? Or some more profound denial of conscience that rips the very fabric of their reality and its consequences?

Have we finally approached the tipping point of corrosive indifference in our leadership and the careless few, again?

Have the wages of supreme narcissism and exceptionalism finally come to be paid with a third financial crisis, and then another?  And finally the unleashing of madness?

 

It profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for a stipend?

 

And when the hard winds of nemesis start howling across the land, where do they think it will end, and who and what do they think will remain standing?

 

Golem XIV - Why Are We Bailing Out the Banks? Part 1

Here is a new essay from Golem XIV that asks the simple question, 'Why are we still bailing out the banks?'

As you know my conclusion has been the power of the status quo and the intractable nature of the credibility trap, going back as far as the economic forecast from 2005.

Why should the rich and powerful stop what they are doing when greed feels so good?  At some point the frenzy is so powerful all one can say is 'more.'  They cannot help themselves.  It is like an addiction, like endless war.

And the downside of reform is not only spoiling you and your fellows 'good thing,' and incurring their displeasure, but perhaps also implicating yourself.  Favors and hidden knowledge go a long way in the halls of power.

Plausible deniability, obfuscation, and the excuse of poor but honestly mistaken judgement are the standard defenses employed by modern financial management,  CEOs, and even former chairmen of the Federal Reserve.

What is most fascinating is that this compulsion to bail out the banks has swept the leadership of the West with little or no dissent, except for a few unruly victims, at least for now.  And maybe Iceland.

Fascism had its fashion in the 1930's.  So why not some new fashionable idea now, as irrational as it may seem? Not the fascism of the jackboot, but a more subtle and clever autocracy of the financial system. None shall buy or sell...

This is nothing new.  Roosevelt is said to have saved capitalism from the capitalists, and Churchill saved Britain from the collaborators and appeasers.  What if there had been no Roosevelt, or Churchill?   What if the face of fascism had not become a raving Hitler, but a Mussolini and a Franco and a Mosley, practical men of business with industrial appeal, worthy of fawning cameos on the cover of Time Magazine?

It is the real motives that are more of a puzzle. Could such destruction be caused by simple greed and a lust for power? There is some precedent for this.

Enjoy.

Why are we bailing out the banks? Part One. The Simple Answer.
by Golem XIV
October 8, 2012

We’ve all seen the film ‘Groundhog Day’. Well, we’re in it. Every morning the radio plays a song which has the chorus, “I rob you babe”. And sure enough when the news comes on, they have. A full five years of pumping money in to the banks and still our leaders will not even consider that they might be wrong. They still insist, as they have from the start, that “There is no alternative’. Call it bail outs, call it QE, call it monetary policy, rescue or suicide, it doesn’t matter. What matters is we’re still doing it.

When our leaders embarked on their policy of bailing out the banks’ private debts, even those of us like me, who believed our rulers were hideously wrong to do so, still harboured a hope that they were at least sincere; that they really were, as they claimed, trying to fix things for all of us. I find this impossible to believe now. If any of the bankers, their experts and our politicians ever were sincere when they claimed we would all be in this together, it now seems terribly clear that none of them has any intention of being with us in what is being forced upon us now.

Just this morning George Osborne and his lick spittle coalition partners have agreed to another £10 billion in cuts to welfare, health, education and the rest while saying that imposing any further taxes on the wealthier will have to wait. They promise to look at that …soon. Promise.

The problem with discussing why we are bailing out the banks is that in the 5 years since the bank debt implosion began, ‘saving’ the banks has now become enmeshed in – and in the headlines replaced by – what the banks and our rulers absolutely insist is an entirely separate ‘crisis’. The financial world and their political friends in all parties have spent two years trying to brainwash us, that the problem is no longer the banks but is a ‘crisis’ of public, sovereign overspend and indebtedness. Putting money in to the banks is now seen as a technical matter rather than anything the public should concern itself about. Indeed there is a desire to return to the idea that the public must stop feeling they should be entitled to have a ‘concern’ about things too technical for them to comprehend ‘in the right way’. The ‘right way’ is to understand that the proper concern of the public should be cutting what the financial experts tell us is the terrible debt problem caused by too much public spending.

The ‘right way’ makes no further mention of public money still supporting the banks nor of the billions more being printed up right now so yet more public money can be lent to them. In fact the right way insists there is no connection between the huge sums nations have pumped in to the banks and the sudden ballooning of sovereign debt in those nations. The ‘right way’ means refusing to see any connection whatever between policies of cutting public spending in the real economy and a shrinking of that economy. No connection at all…obviously. Any economic Phd can see that.

5 years on and more people are more confused than ever. People cannot understand how the same politicians can insist it is essential to keep ‘helping’ the banks with ever larger sums (trillion is the new billion) regardless of what debt it incurs, while with equal fervor insisting it is absolutely imperative that we cut spending on anything other than the banks – because we are in debt. And so with their certainties chained to our legs, we are sinking in to a mire of suffocating confusion, lies and fraud.

Sometimes in a world of increasing confusion it is good to ask simple questions. Why are we bailing out the banks?..."


Read the entire essay including the 'simple answer' here.

Robert Johnson: Economists As Marketeers for the Monied Interests

Economics is a disgraced profession because of the actions of a few that were tolerated by many, too often for the sake of grants, appointments, and academic timidity. Careerism.

I would not give many of the Wall Street friendly economists too much credit for an obsession with abstract thinking and even dogmatic blindness, but much moreso a willingly cynical preoccupation with temporal honors, prestige, power, and money handed out by the financial interests in a bubble economy of their own creation.

And there is a fitting emblem for this hubris, the cult of the self, with the long tenure of Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve. 

A bureaucrat who is in a position of power for far too long can become a debilitating influence not only on their particular area or department, but on a profession as a whole.  One might think of it as the J. Edgar Hoover syndrome.

Robert Johnson serves as the Executive Director of the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) and a Senior Fellow and Director of the Global Finance Project for the Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt Institute in New York.

Johnson is an international investor and consultant to investment funds on issues of portfolio strategy. He recently served on the United Nations Commission of Experts on International Monetary Reform under the Chairmanship of Joseph Stiglitz.

Previously, Johnson was a Managing Director at Soros Fund Management where he managed a global currency, bond and equity portfolio specializing in emerging markets. Prior to working at Soros Fund Management, he was a Managing Director of Bankers Trust Company managing a global currency fund.

Johnson served as Chief Economist of the US Senate Banking Committee under the leadership of Chairman William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin). Before this, he was Senior Economist of the US Senate Budget Committee under the leadership of Chairman Pete Domenici (R. New Mexico).

Johnson was an Executive Producer of the Oscar winning documentary, Taxi to the Dark Side, directed by Alex Gibney, and is the former President of the National Scholastic Chess Foundation. He currently sits on the Board of Directors of both the Economic Policy Institute and the Campaign for America’s Future.

Johnson received a Ph.D. and M.A. in Economics from Princeton University and a B.S. in both Electrical Engineering and Economics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Acemoglu and Robinson: Why Nations Fail

In a generally deferential and ineffective Congressional spectacle, some say minuet and I think kabuki dance, Jim DeMint's 'questioning' of Jamie Dimon, who responded to most serious questions with poker faced whoppers, today pushed me over the edge, and so putting the internet feed on mute, I thought I would take a moment to bring the study Why Nation's Fail by Acemoglu and Robinson to your attention.

"Countries differ in their economic success because of their different institutions, the rules influencing how the economy works, and the incentives that motivate people,” write Acemoglu and Robinson. Extractive institutions, whether feudalism in medieval Europe or the use of schoolchildren to harvest cotton in contemporary Uzbekistan, transfer wealth from the masses to elites.

In contrast, inclusive institutions—based on property rights, the rule of law, equal provision of public services, and free economic choices—create incentives for citizens to gain skills, make capital investments, and pursue technological innovation, all of which increase productivity and generate wealth. Economic institutions are themselves the products of political processes, which depend on political institutions. These can also be extractive, if they enable an elite to maintain its dominance over society, or inclusive, if many groups have access to the political process. Poverty is not an accident: “Poor countries are poor because those who have power make choices that create poverty.” Therefore, Acemoglu and Robinson argue, it is ultimately politics that matters.

The logic of extractive and inclusive institutions explains why growth is not foreordained. Where a cohesive elite can use its political dominance to get rich at the expense of ordinary people, it has no need for markets and free enterprise, which can create political competitors. In addition, because control of the state can be highly lucrative, infighting among contenders for power produces instability and violence. This vicious circle keeps societies poor.

In more fortunate countries, pluralistic political institutions prevent any one group from monopolizing resources for itself, while free markets empower a large class of people with an interest in defending the current system against absolutism. This virtuous circle, which first took form in seventeenth-century England, is the secret to economic growth."

James Kwak, Failure Is An Option, A Review of Why Nations Fail

As you know I have often said that in a sovereign fiat currency, inflation and deflation are a policy decision.

Acemoglu and Robinson take this premise a broad step further, and show through many historical examples that national success or failure, as one might define it in terms of the broadest happiness and success for the most people, is also the result largely of policy decisions.

Neither austerity or stimulus will be effective in restoring growth to the American economy. Most if not all of the pain of austerity will fall on the hapless victims and the disenfranchised innocent, while most of the profits of recovery through stimulus will flow to the one percent. No matter what strategy you may employ, it is difficult to be successful against a stacked deck in a rigged game.

The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained growth and recovery.

Why Nations Fail

I would tend to add to what Robinson has to say that extractive economic institutions tend to actively promote and fund extractive political movements, laws, public policy, and systems of both the left and the right. Even the subversion of effective government and a descent into near anarchy can serve the monied interests, because effective democratic government is a counterbalance against private power.

At their extremes, neither communism nor fascism nor corporate capitalism are much different, as they both become extractive for the benefit of a small elite at the expense and misery of the people.

A Thought on Recovery, Reform, and Events of the Day

"It is not those who advocate, but those who prevent, stabilizing transfers of purchasing power, who are the true Marxists. These self-styled capitalists do not espouse Marx’s theories, but they do something much worse: They perform them. They behave in precisely the way that Marx expected capitalists to behave. They cripple the American system’s greatest strength — its ingenuity, flexibility, adaptability. They prevent the sort of collective action through which earlier generations proved that capitalism could made be consonant with decent, stable, and broadly prosperous societies. In doing so, they risk proving Marx right."

Steve Randy Waldman said this here and I think he is brilliantly right. This is becoming less a struggle to recovery as it is an obsession with personal greed and the will to power gone horribly wrong, corrosive to social structure through corruption, and veering towards the dangerously self-destructive.

Are fellows like Governor Walker of Wisconsin and his backers the Koch brothers 'performing Marxists?' lol I have often wondered if Greenspan was a Randian fifth columnist leading fiat money to its ideological conclusion, but certainly not a Marxian.

Or could it just be that current events and crises bring out and show us who we really are, and hopefully, offer to change us? Those who hold other people in contempt are ever more contemptible, the would be masters ever more deceitful, and obsessive greed leads the few into rough hands and dark cellars. How much wealth did Mubarak and Gaddafi really need after all? Is there not some pathology clearly in evidence with these man-gods, and even in the minor deities on Wall Street? Sad little boys and broken men become dark spirits, seeking to fill the hole in their beings with things, people, all possessions without savour, a wreckage of devices. And even more sad the husks and shadows of people, never at peace, who follow after in their wake, like swirling leaves pulled fitfully along with the wind.

Hell is truly the inability to feel love, empathy, and compassion, knowing the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

Strange days, I am sad to say. Change is in the wind, and is starting to blow like a hurricane, as cycles come round again.

"Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity...
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

W. B. Yeats

Both austerity and stimulus will falter in the mire of imbalanced, broken systems and corruption. The Banks must be restrained, and the financial system reformed, with balance restored to the economy, before there can be any sustained recovery.

From Japan: An Interesting Comment On US Economic Planning, the Dollar, and Peak Cheap Oil

I shared a copy of this video with a friend in Japan earlier today.

Prof. Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University on the Obama Budget

I received his reply, and it was much more interesting and insightful than I had hoped it would be.  Certainly a perspective that I have heard in none of the US based commentary today, a much longer term and more strategic view. 

I am sure there are plenty of problems which Japan faces that we could discuss.  It has an aging population, very low birth rates, heavy dependence on imports, and a weak military capability.  Its ability to attract and successfully assimilate immigrants is a challenge.  Every country has problems.

I am not quite sure I know the answers about peak cheap oil. But what I think I know is that the challenge to the US is an inability or an unwillingness to think and execute strategically, ie. long term, in non-military matters.  I believe this is a result of its system which is heavily oriented towards short term economic incentives, regional military conflicts, and financial speculation. 

The idea that you would allow what are essentially short term financial speculators to make important public policy decisions with far-reaching, long term consequences seems unusual or even lunatic in most parts of the world, and is certainly not a trend in historically successful organizations.

Within the metrics of energy and infrastructure, the US government is playing checkers in a game of Go.   Its greatest leverage now appears to be an ability to kick over the global economic playing table in an act of self-destruction.  And that threat is wearing thin.


A Japanese perspective on the US budget:

"Unfortunately, the risk of the whole ponzi scheme crashing sooner rather than later is going way up, rapidly.

They want the dollar to go down by 40%, but I think they are going to lose control, and they might wind up with a 90% panic drop in a few months.

As I said, Japan, around 1995, went into a full peak cheap oil panic. A lot of the government borrowing went to what is characterized as "building bridges to nowhere", but I would characterize it as building some bridges to nowhere, building some airports in nowhere, and fixing the entire rail and road infrastructure of the country.

All the bridges and tunnels have been steel plated reinforced, all the bridges are in perfect repair, and the Shinkansen system will next month be extended all the way from Aomori to Kagoshima.

In other words, I think they knew this 15 years ago and did everything that requires a lot of energy, such as steel, asphalt, cement, and completely the public transit infrastructure. The per capital floor space in Tokyo was doubled.

So, if we really do have a decade of serious energy problems coming, Japan has become about as energy efficient as it can be, with further improvements coming as appliances are replaced, etc.

The US has done nearly nothing, although I did note that the gasoline use declined by 7% in one year. There really is a lot of squandering going on. Now, however, the US needs to completely reconstruct its infrastructure, and it doesn't have the money or energy to do it.

This is why I have thought for more than a decade that the trigger for a really nasty collapse of the dollar would be peak cheap oil.

Do they realize that if the dollar drops by half that oil becomes $200 a barrel? Gasoline would be over $5, and the country would be paralyzed. If the dollar drops more than that, the existing infrastructure would become nearly useless and worthless.

I am afraid that the US has already passed the point of no return.  Had the cheap oil continued, the ponzi could have continued for a good while longer.

I think the realization that the cheap oil is gone is the primary motivation for the smash-and-grab behavior we are seeing in the US."

Perhaps, and it might also be the rationale for the increased military presence surrounding the largest known cheap oil reserves in the world.

Gold Bulls Are In Their Cups and the Bull Market in Confidence Games and Voodoo Economics

A friend and correspondent over at BullionVault reminded me the other day that some have been watching what they consider to be a larger cup and handle on the gold daily chart going back to 2008.

My depiction of that longer term chart formation is below.



I had carefully considered that interpretation last year but the handle formed much higher relative to the cup than I would prefer. Further, it did not form like a classic handle on the retracements. Instead I considered it to be a simple inverse Head and Shoulders continuation pattern in this bull market, from the extreme selling in the liquidity crisis.

The patterns have similar pricing objectives, unless you draw the lines as diagonals and attempt to measure off the top of the handle. Either way, each is a chart formation that is active and working with objectives north of where the cash price is today.

There are two reasons to use a cup and handle versus an inverse H&S. The first is that the breakout action on the handle is more easily charted and evaluated. A breakout through the neckline of any H&S is merely a binary event, whereas a handle permits more gradation. Head and Shoulder patterns are simple creatures. The second reason is that some people do not believe that an inverse H&S is an appropriate continuation pattern, and can only be used for a clear 'bottom' of a downtrend. I obviously do not agree with the latter. They can often act as continuation patterns after a severe selloff in a bull market trend that remains intact.

And there is of course, with the advent of modern computerized charting tools, the temptation to overcomplicate a chart and fill the page with far too many lines and circles and diagonal relationships to the point of obscurity, as though a Euclid of Alexandria had thrown up a lifetime of drawing on a basic price chart.

As an aside, sometimes readers will say things like 'So and So is a respected chart authority and he says...' And this is provided without justification, on the basis of authority. Well, one must always listen respectfully to learned opinions, but then look carefully at the empirical evidence, in a scientific manner, which in my book trumps theory and the 'rules' made by men.

When I was working at Bell Labs a very learned and internationally respected authority (and my boss' boss which was the ultimate power of that bureaucracy) told me that I "obviously did not understand information theory" when I presented the case for developing higher speed modems (> 9600 bps) , Digital Subscriber Line technology, and high speed local area transmission over unshielded twisted pairs, well in advance of their formative discussions on the CCITT and US IEEE committees. In other words, I have made my career in not accepting the conventional wisdom and authority of the day. Sometimes what you think you know prepares you for a world that no longer exists, because it was an illusion.

And that goes double for macroeconomics, which seems now more like marketing than mathematics, more astrology than physics. The US financial system is largely a confidence game, or more appropriately a racket dominated by rival white collar crime gangs.

Far too many economists tell people what they wish to hear, or what their masters are promoting, and attempt to give it the trappings of respectability with professional jargon, self-referential theories and elaborate faux proofs, with the trappings of equations based on falsified assumptions. If you want to measure a contemporary economist, see what they are saying, if anything, about reforming and restructuring the financial system.

A government needs to decide first what sort of nation it wishes to be, and then use economics as one means of sorting out more granular choices among policy decisions. To treat economics as a primary determinant of social policy is to perpetuate the hoax of the efficient markets hypothesis and the inherent goodness of 'free trade.' But it does helps economists to gain funding from the plutocrats, and serves to divert the public from the discussion of meaningful reforms.

Finally, at this point in my third career, I AM a 'chart authority' of sorts in my little circle, and it is my money on the line when I am investing, so I think I have some say, at least in my own kitchen, as long as she-who-must-be-considered is out front. lol.

Here is a picture of the pullback on the cup and handle we have been watching for the past few weeks. So far it is as expected.

Matt Taibbi: Wall Street's Naked Swindle

This is worth reading.

Wall Street's Naked Swindle by Matt Taibbi.

Closing quote from this story:

"The new president for whom we all had such high hopes went and hired Michael Froman, a Citigroup executive who accepted a $2.2 million bonus after he joined the White House, to serve on his economic transition team — at the same time the government was giving Citigroup a massive bailout. Then, after promising to curb the influence of lobbyists, Obama hired a former Goldman Sachs lobbyist, Mark Patterson, as chief of staff at the Treasury. He hired another Goldmanite, Gary Gensler, to police the commodities markets. He handed control of the Treasury and Federal Reserve over to Geithner and Bernanke, a pair of stooges who spent their whole careers being bellhops for New York bankers. And on the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when he finally came to Wall Street to promote "serious financial reform," his plan proved to be so completely absent of balls that the share prices of the major banks soared at the news.

The nation's largest financial players are able to write the rules for own their businesses and brazenly steal billions under the noses of regulators, and nothing is done about it. A thing so fundamental to civilized society as the integrity of a stock, or a mortgage note, or even a U.S. Treasury bond, can no longer be protected, not even in a crisis, and a crime as vulgar and conspicuous as counterfeiting can take place on a systematic level for years without being stopped, even after it begins to affect the modern-day equivalents of the Rockefellers and the Carnegies. What 10 years ago was a cheap stock-fraud scheme for second-rate grifters in Brooklyn has become a major profit center for Wall Street. Our burglar class now rules the national economy. And no one is trying to stop them."

The Stock Market in Context with the Great Crash of 1929 - 1932

The US Stock Market Crash of 2007 - 2010 expressed in percent decline from the market top in October 2007.



A trading day by trading day comparison of the Great Crash of 1929 - 1932 with the current market decline from its October 2007 top.



The classic profile of a collapsing bubble.



The economic policy of the early post-Crash period was heavily influenced by what was later called Liquidationism epitomized by prevailing views of the Hoover Administration. The idea was that allowing companies and banks to fail as quickly as possible, in a relatively uncontrolled manner, was the appropriate response. This view is still held by the Austrian School of economics.

The flaw in this theory would seem to be that the decline of a crash is not like a natural decline in a business cycle or a severe demand contraction, but the result of a precipitous collapse from a Ponzi-like monetary and credit expansion.

One can argue this point, endlessly if they wish to ignore history and economic reality, but again we need to remember that the outcome in several other nations embracing this theory was the rise of militant, fascist political regimes in response to societal dislocations.

Obviously the best cure is prevention, in not allowing monetary bubbles in the first place. Duh. But one has to play with the cards in one's hand, and not the hand they wish to have.

But there is a lesson in this for our current 'cure' in that blowing yet another asset bubble from a monetary expansion, and little else, will not work. We ought to have learned this from the Fed's policy responses in 2003-2006 which led to the US housing bubble.

Systemic reform and rebalancing is absolutely essential to a sustained economy recovery, and needs to be measured by an increasing median wage and a reversion to manageable income - debt ratios.

The headwinds against this remedy from an outsized financial sector that in many cases has coopted the political process makes a sustained economic recovery less probable without a significant shock to the political and economic structures of the US at least.



Bernanke's wager

Being a student of economic history, Ben Bernanke believes that he can inflate the currency subtly without a formal devaluation, and avoid a second leg down to a deeper bottom.

The Fed is now confident, with the Volcker era inflation experience under their belts, that they do not need to replicate the NY Fed policy error of the 1931 by increasing nominal interest rates prematurely out of inflationary concerns.

Things ARE somewhat different today, in that there is no gold standard, and the world has relatively free flows of fiat capital under a US dollar reserve currency schema.

It should be noted, with no mistake, that the limiting factor on the Fed is the valuation of the US dollar and its sovereign. In 1931 the limiting factor was the gold standard which severely limited the Fed's options, and eventually caused a significant formal devaluation of the US dollar in a step-wise function.

In a fiat regime the devaluation can be done gradually without fanfare.



It is also easy to forget that in 1931 the business community and the leading economists were convinced that the worst was over and that a recovery was underway. Their concerns shifted to inflation, and dealing with the then unprecedented expansion of narrow money in the adjusted monetary base to ease short term credit problems.



The 'risk' is obviously that the analog with the Fed's experiment with subduing inflation in the 1970's under Volcker are not completely consistent to the environmental context today.

The levels of US debt to be absorbed by the rest of the World are without known precedent. And the degrees of freedom in the Fed's calculation are significantly impacted by the policy actions of countries that may be sympathetic but not completely consistent with their own national self-interest or inclinations.

From our own viewpoint, without signficant structural reforms to the US economy and political process, which at this time seem unlikely to overcome the resistance of the status quo, the Fed's actions will most likely result in another type of bubble, less obvious than the last two perhaps, and a stagflationary economic recovery of a sort combing some of the nastier aspects of the Japanese experience, but with a nasty dose of the post-Soviet / Argentinian slumps.

A deflationary envionrment with a stronger US dollar appears to be a fantasy in our opinion, although we have always held it to be possible. Of course it is possible. If the Fed raised short term rates to 22 percent tomorrow, we would see a serious deflation and a stronger dollar.

We would also see riots and civil insurrection in response. This is another limiting factor on the policy decisions of the Fed and the Administration, which people tend to underappreciate, again ignoring many of the social and political events of the 1930's.

The US dollar will continue to decline until there is a precipitating currency crisis that clears the market for US debt. Things will not be able to continue on this way forever. We estimate that the next bubble, if the Fed is able to get the rest of the world behind it, will be decisive.

However, we continue to degrade the probability of this happening as the weeks go by, and the rest of the world appears to be asserting its financial sovereignty from the Anglo-American banking cartel.

The Crisis of Our Democracy: Corruption in the Financial Markets and Obama's Failure to Reform

This interview with William Black in Barron's is an articulate and reasonably detailed summary of our own view of the current crisis from an exceptionally well-informed and experienced source.

The big question in our own mind is the depth of complicity and the motivations of the government, the media and major institutions in continuing to support this financial corruption through silence or participation.

Is Obama really merely listening to the wrong advice from highly placed sources in the Democratic Party? And how sincere are they? The record of corruption in the Obama Administration in the form of conflicts of interest and tax evasion is already the smoke that warns of fire.

All good questions, more relating to the length of time to a cure rather than its essential character.

The banks must be restrained, the financial system must be reformed, before there can be a sustained economic recovery.


Barron's
The Lessons of the Savings-and-Loan Crisis
By Jack Willoughby
11 April 2009

AN INTERVIEW WITH WILLIAM BLACK: The current bank scandal dwarfs the 1980s savings-and-loan crisis -- and could destroy the Obama presidency.

WILLIAM BLACK CALLS THEM AS HE SEES THEM, which is why we enjoy talking with him. Black, 57 years old, was a deputy director at the former Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. during the thrift crisis of the 1980s, and now serves as an associate professor, teaching economics and law at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. At FSLIC, a government agency that insured S&L deposits, Black prevailed in showdowns with the powerful Democratic Speaker of the House, Jim Wright, and helped identify the infamous Keating Five, a group of U.S. senators (including Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who lost his bid for the presidency in 2008) who tried to quash his attempt to close Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan. Wright eventually resigned amid unrelated ethics charges, and the senators were reprimanded for poor judgment. Keating went to jail for securities fraud.

For Black's provocative thoughts on the current financial crisis, read on.


Barron's: Just how serious is this credit crisis? What is at stake here for the American taxpayer?

Black: Mopping up the savings-and-loan crisis cost $150 billion; this current crisis will probably cost a multiple of that. The scale of fraud is immense. This whole bank scandal makes Teapot Dome [of the 1920s] look like some kid's doll set. Unless the current administration changes course pretty drastically, the scandal will destroy Barack Obama's presidency. The Bush administration was even worse. But they are out of town. This will destroy Obama's administration, both economically and in terms of integrity.

So you are saying Democrats as well as Republicans share the blame? No one can claim the high ground?

We have failed bankers giving advice to failed regulators on how to deal with failed assets. How can it result in anything but failure? If they are going to get any truthful investigation, the Democrats picked the wrong financial team. Tim Geithner, the current Secretary of the Treasury, and Larry Summers, chairman of the National Economic Council, were important architects of the problems. Geithner especially represents a failed regulator, having presided over the bailouts of major New York banks.

So you aren't a fan of the recently announced plan for the government to back private purchases of the toxic assets?

It is worse than a lie. Geithner has appropriated the language of his critics and of the forthright to support dishonesty. That is what's so appalling -- numbering himself among those who convey tough medicine when he is really pandering to the interests of a select group of banks who are on a first-name basis with Washington politicians.

The current law mandates prompt corrective action, which means speedy resolution of insolvencies. He is flouting the law, in naked violation, in order to pursue the kind of favoritism that the law was designed to prevent. He has introduced the concept of capital insurance, essentially turning the U.S. taxpayer into the sucker who is going to pay for everything. He chose this path because he knew Congress would never authorize a bailout based on crony capitalism.

Geithner is mistaken when he talks about making deeply unpopular moves. Such stiff resolve to put the major banks in receivership would be appreciated in every state but Connecticut and New York. His use of language like "legacy assets" -- and channeling the worst aspects of Milton Friedman -- is positively Orwellian. Extreme conservatives wrongly assume that the government can't do anything right. And they wrongly assume that the market will ultimately lead to correct actions. If cheaters prosper, cheaters will dominate. It is like Gresham's law: Bad money drives out the good. Well, bad behavior drives out good behavior, without good enforcement.

His plan essentially perpetuates zombie banks by mispricing toxic assets that were mispriced to the borrower and mispriced by the lender, and which only served the unfaithful lending agent.

We already know from the real costs -- through the cleanups of IndyMac, Bear Stearns, and Lehman -- that the losses will be roughly 50 to 80 cents on the dollar. The last thing we need is a further drain on our resources and subsidies by promoting this toxic-asset market. By promoting this notion of too-big-to-fail, we are allowing a pernicious influence to remain in Washington. The truth has a resonance to it. The folks know they are being lied to.

I keep asking myself, what would we do in other avenues of life? What if every time we had a plane crash we said: 'It might be divisive to investigate. We want to be forward-looking.' Nobody would fly. It would be a disaster.

We know that with planes, every time there is an accident, we look intensively, without the interference of politics. That is why we have such a safe industry.

Summarize the problem as best you can for Barron's readers.

With most of America's biggest banks insolvent, you have, in essence, a multitrillion dollar cover-up by publicly traded entities, which amounts to felony securities fraud on a massive scale.

These firms will ultimately have to be forced into receivership, the management and boards stripped of office, title, and compensation. First there needs to be a clearing of the air -- a Pecora-style fact-finding mission conducted without fear or favor. [Ferdinand Pecora was an assistant district attorney from New York who investigated Wall Street practices in the 1930s.] Then, we need to gear up to pursue criminal cases. Two years after the market collapsed, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has one-fourth of the resources that the agency used during the savings-and-loan crisis. And the current crisis is 10 times as large.

There need to be major task forces set up, like there were in the thrift crisis. Right now, things don't look good. We are using taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out European banks like Société Générale, Deutsche Bank, and UBS -- and even our own Goldman Sachs. To me, the single most obscene act of this scandal has been providing billions in taxpayer money via AIG to secretly bail out UBS in Switzerland, while we were simultaneously prosecuting the bank for tax fraud. The second most obscene: Goldman receiving almost $13 billion in AIG counterparty payments after advising Geithner, president of the New York Fed, and then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, former Goldman Sachs honcho, on the AIG government takeover -- and also receiving government bailout loans.

What, then, is staying the federal government's hand? Have the banks become too difficult or complex to regulate?

The government is reluctant to admit the depth of the problem, because to do so would force it to put some of America's biggest financial institutions into receivership. The people running these banks are some of the most well-connected in Washington, with easy access to legislators. Prompt corrective action is what is needed, and mandated in the law. And that is precisely what isn't happening.

The savings-and-loan crisis showed that, too often, the regulators became too close to the industry, and run interference for friends by hiding the problems.

Can you explain your idea of control fraud, and how it applies to the current banking and the earlier thrift crisis?

Control fraud is when a seemingly legitimate corporation uses its power as a weapon to defraud or take something of value through deceit.

In the savings-and-loan crisis, thrifts engaged in control frauds in order to survive. Accounting trickery proved to be the weapon of choice. It is at work today with the banks, and it is their Achilles heel. You report that you are highly profitable when you engage in accounting-control fraud, not only meeting but exceeding capital requirements. These accounting frauds create huge bubbles, which in turn create large bonuses, which in turn lead to huge losses.

Why then is there so much smoke and so little action?

First, they are inundated by the problem. They are trying to investigate the major problems with severely depleted staffs. Honestly. We have lost the ability to be blunt. Now we have a situation where Treasury Secretary Geithner can speak of a $2 trillion hole in the banking system, at the same time all the major banks report they are well-capitalized. And you have seen no regulatory action against what amounts to a $2 trillion accounting fraud. The reason we don't see it -- aren't told about it -- is that if they were honest, prompt corrective action would kick in, and they would have to deal with the problem banks.

Are there any parallels between the current crisis and the savings-and-loan crisis that give you hope?

Of course. Objectively, our case was even more hopeless in the S&L debacle than in the current crisis. If we were able to do it in such an impossible circumstance back then, we have reason for hope in the current crisis. I know how easily things can get off course and how quickly things can turn back again. The thrift crisis went through several lengthy courses and distortions before it finally was resolved under the leadership of Edwin Gray, the chairman of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which oversaw FSLIC.

We went through almost a decade of cover-ups by a Washington establishment intent on helping thrift owners. Back then, we had the Justice Department threatening to indict Gray, the head of a federal agency, for closing too many thrifts. Next, there were those so-called resolutions, where the regulators worked day and night -- to create even bigger problems for the FSLIC. Years later, these so-called resolution deals had to be unwound at great expense by closing down even larger failures. Or how about the bill to replenish the depleted thrift-insurance fund that was blocked and delayed by then-Speaker of the House, Texas congressman Jim Wright?

You say the evidence of a breakdown in the regulatory structure comes from the fact that America avoided an earlier subprime crisis in the 1990s.

Exactly. Why had no one heard of the subprime crisis back in 1991? Because America's regulators also faced down the crisis early. The same thing happened with bad credits being securitized in the secondary market. Remember the low-doc or no-doc mortgages done by Citibank? Well, the problem didn't spread -- because regulators intervened.

Obama, who is doing so well in so many other arenas, appears to be slipping because he trusts Democrats high in the party structure too much.

These Democrats want to maintain America's pre-eminence in global financial capitalism at any cost. They remain wedded to the bad idea of bigness, the so-called financial supermarket -- one-stop shopping for all customers -- that has allowed the American financial system to paper the world with subprime debt. Even the managers of these worldwide financial conglomerates testify that they have become so sprawling as to be unmanageable.

What needs to be done?

Well, these international behemoths need to be broken down into smaller units that can be managed effectively. Maybe they can be broken up the way that the Standard Oil split up back in the early 1900s, through a simple share spinoff.

The big problem for the last decade is that we have had too much capacity in the finance sector -- too many banks have represented a drain on our talent and resources. All these mergers haven't taken capacity out of the system. They have created even bigger banks that concentrate risk to the taxpayer, and put off dealing with problems.

And a new seriousness must be put into regulation. We don't necessarily need new rules. We just need folks who can enforce the ones already on the books.

The bank-compensation system also creates an environment that leads to mismanagement and fraud. No one has to tell someone they have to stretch the numbers. It is all around them. It is in the rank-or-yank performance and retention systems advocated by top business executives. Here, the top 20% get the bulk of the benefits and the bottom 10% get fired. You don't directly tell your employees you want them to lie and cheat. You set up an atmosphere of results at any cost. Rank or yank. Sooner rather than later, someone comes up with the bright idea of fudging the numbers. That's big bonuses for the folks who make the best numbers. It sends the message -- making the numbers is what is most important. There is a reason that the average tenure of a chief financial officer is three years.

Compensation systems like I have just described discourage whistleblowing -- the most common way that frauds are found in America -- because the system draws upon the cooperation of everyone.

The basis for all regulation and white-collar crime is to take the competitive advantage away from the cheats, so the good guys can prevail. We need to get back to that.

Thanks, Bill.

Warren Buffett: "Economy Has Fallen Off a Cliff"

Warren Buffett is 'talking his book' for a portion of this interview, but he does have some unique insights into the real time economic conditions because of the position of his conglomerate in a number of key businesses that measure the pulse of economic activity.

He sees inflation ahead, and rightly so. The question however is, as always, when?

Adding debt capacity to the system now is useless. Yes, stabilizing the financial system is important. But the demand for debt is so lagging, and the prospects for profit so poor, that one wonders if only the desparate will cry for more credit while they drown.

The solution will be an improvement in the median wage, systemic reforms, and the orderly writedown of debt held by effectively insolvent banks. 'Saving the banking system' as it is constituted now is more than a fool's errand.

It is the path to a test of the fabric of our government not seen since the 1860's.

Bloomberg
Warren Buffett Says Economy Has ‘Fallen Off a Cliff’
By Erik Holm
March 9, 2009 09:29 EDT

March 9 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway Inc. posted its worst results ever in 2008, said the economy “has fallen off a cliff” and that efforts to stimulate recovery may lead to inflation higher than the 1970s.

The American public is fearful, confused and changing their buying habits, which is showing up at Berkshire’s operating units, Buffett said during an appearance on the CNBC television network today. While the recession will end and future generations will live better than their parents, the economy “can’t turn around on a dime,” Buffett said, adding that some inflation is appropriate right now.

“We are doing things now that are potentially very inflationary,” he said. Buffett called on Congress to unite behind President Barack Obama, comparing the economic crisis to a military conflict that needs a commander-in-chief. “Patriotic Americans will realize this is a war,” he said....