This round-up is a lot more optimistic than the "Ridiculous Statistics At A Glance"! Not saying much, but it's something ... like about Romney and also about Buddy Roemer. If there was ever a case of "I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me," it's Buddy Roemer. I may write him in, regardless of party, no matter what.
You gotta hand it to David Cay Johnston. I have often advocated for treating Wall Street's gambling as gambling for IRS purposes, but I never thought about gambling debts being unenforceable in US law. That's pure genius. I'll expect that to happen about when prosecutors start to apply RICO to properties where repeated violations of immigration and labor law occur.
Excellent blog by BruceJudson! Also, a great title. Thank you!
I caught the same NPR thing the other day, part of a three-part series -- von Hayek, Rand and (last but not least) Keynes. I caught most of the Hayek and Rand shows, but I missed the one on Keynes. Typical of NPR, they mostly presented von Hayek and Rand in the framework that these illuminaries are today satisfying an almost unquenchable thirst on the part of the public for supposedly more-or-less censored teachings in opposition to liberalism experienced as deeply repressive to the masses today! Shades of National Review from half a century ago! Oh well ... anything to please ... somebody.
I thought that what was most interesting about Ayn Rand was her remark in the interview where she actually rejects any and all faith(s) as weakness of character, preferring instead to base the whole of ethics and morality on logic! Now how exactly does the GOP or those who claim exclusive rights to the word 'conservative' ... how do they reconcile their 'social conservative' and their 'economic conservative' things? I can never figure that out. One of the deep mysteries of metaphysics, I suppose.
And, btw, was Rand serious about developing a coherent ethical system based purely on logic? I have held this idea about axiomatics that you must have independent statements that have never been and cannot be proven within your thought system, (your Boolean p's and q's), before you can start to apply logic!
Sometimes I ask this question: "If Karl Marx could come back to life, what would he do?" My answer to that question is that he would start by tossing out Marxism, seeing that the world had changed so much, over the past century and more, that Marxism is no longer of any use except as ancient history.
BruceJudson has developed a kind of deviationist or reductionist approach to Randian philosophy, inquiring where principles reduced from Rand's writings would take us, logically, in the current context? --
From this perspective, Rand’s philosophy points out that real capitalism is no longer enforced in America; not because of welfare programs, taxes, the social safety net, or government regulations, but for a very different reason: The highest paid people in America today create no real wealth for the society.
I do the same kind of thing with my own historical guru for economic theory, Henry C. Simons. In the last couple of years of his life (1945-1946), Simons was a huge opponent of tariffs and other trade barriers. My opinion is that Simons, in light of what corporate globalism has wrought, would make very different recommendations today. I believe he would advocate some form of protectionism, based on his basic premise that economic policy must be judged according to how well it prevents the centralization of power (how well it enhances and supports individual liberty), with that judgment to be informed by actual experience.
BTW: great analysis about profits. Myself, I like to distinguish 'profits' from 'returns' -- or what I would call "return on investment" or ROI. I like to reserve the word "profit" exactly because it is, as BruceJudson notes, a very useful accounting proxy in the context of actual production of goods and services. But I have to distinguish 'monetary ROI' from ROI in the usual sense, because while ROI has come to indicate some measurable phenomena, those phenomena are not necessarily measurable in monetary terms.
Of course, financial services are, or can be, services. It's just that financial services created and employed only for the monetary benefit of those who own them or provide them ... that's the problem. That would be like a shoemaker who makes shoes only for himself. Or it would be like a group of shoemakers who make millions of shoes and then gets paid $Billions even though they never deliver any shoes to anyone outside their group. Think gold.
Hmm. What about Soros? Of course, I recognize the name and I know a little of the reputation, about besting the Bank of England a few years back in a high-stakes currency game.
More recently, I read something that he wrote where he makes recommendations for resolving the Euro crisis, which I didn't consider fundamental enough to amount to a true progressive reform of the system. But what the heck? He lives in Europe ... and what do I know? Along the same lines, Soros is sometimes identified with the House of Rothschild and, thus, he's probably a globalist such that I wouldn't get along with him at all. But again, he's worth billions of Euros and probably lives on top of a vault filled with gold ... and who am I with my piddling stash of silver?
Anyway, I associate CAP with ThinkProgress.org, and it seems to me that I have occasionally been directed there to find something of value, coming from a link at some website that I frequent (which would not be ThinkProgress). So, to check my overall 'okay' impression, I have just now gone to the ThinkProgress front page, where I find good-to-pretty-good coverage of the Occupy phenomena. For example, from TP article by Zaid Jilani, 18 November 2011 --
In one of the greatest signs yet that the 99 Percenters are having an impact, Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, today introduced an amendment that would ban corporate money in politics and end corporate personhood once and for all.
Deutch’s amendment, called the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Amendment, would overturn the Citizens United decision, re-establishing the right of Congress and the states to regulate campaign finance laws, and to effectively outlaw the ability of for-profit corporations to contribute to campaign spending.
I have this worrisome feeling that I am supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction to the name Soros, just like I am supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction to the name Rockefeller or the name Kennedy or the name Warren Buffet or the name Steve Jobs.
I guess Soros is identified with Obama ... but so was Steve Jobs ... and Steve even was identified as a major reason Barack has gone all out for outsourcing. If I knee-jerk negative toward George, won'tl I have to knee-jerk negative toward Steve?
In the case of Warren Buffet, my knee jerks mostly positive, but much more positive for the other Buffet -- Jimmy Buffet ....
Mother, mother ocean, I've heard your call.
Wanted to sail upon your waters
Since I was three feet tall
You've seen it all, you've seen it all.
Excellent AAA++ blog by Numerian! I have one clarification or question -- about CME Group as distinguished from the former CME or Merc. CME Group is the head of the Medusa monstrosity.
It's evident that the Medusa can only be slain by removing the head from the body. The body is the global financial system, and the head is CME Global. It's like a dragon -- sooner or later, it must be slain, and with this kind of dragon, there's only one way to do it.
CME Group Inc. (NASDAQ: CME) owns and operates large derivatives and futures exchanges in Chicago and New York City, as well as online trading platforms. It also owns the Dow Jones stock and financial indexes. The exchange-traded derivative contracts include futures and options based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, energy, agricultural commodities, rare and precious metals, weather and real estate.
The corporate world headquarters are in the Chicago Loop financial district The corporation was formed by the 2007 merger of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) and the Chicago Board of Trade (CBOT). On March 17, 2008, it announced its acquisition of NYMEX Holdings, Inc., parent company of the New York Mercantile Exchange and Commodity Exchange, Inc (COMEX), which was formally completed on August 22, 2008. The four exchanges now operate as designated contract markets (DCM) of the CME Group.
On February 10, 2010, CME announced its purchase of 90% of Dow Jones Indexes including the Dow Jones Industrial Average.
CME Group owns 5% of BM&F Bovespa, the São Paulo stock exchange operator. BM&F Bovespa owns also 5% of CME Group.
The CME Group bases prices for US gasoline on Brent Crude (a European pricing index) rather than West Texas Intermediate Crude (a US-based gauge of supply and demand), which many believe is responsible for artificially high gas prices for US consumers. Neither the US government, nor the Comodities Futures Trade Commission have jurisdiction to alter this practice, and so it is believed to enrich oil and gas companies at consumers' considerable expense.
In short, CME Group represents an unsustainable exponentiation of the Enron phenomenon -- a nightmarish exponentiation of the myth of privatization as panacea for whatever ails the world.
In the MF Global scandal, CME Group has operated to provide an appearance of effective regulation, and the great sin of the CFTC is that they fell for the myth of self-regulation, which turns out to be nothing other than a con-artist scam. All this has been in pursuit of a pseudo-libertarian will-o-the-wisp that commerce and finance need no governmental regulation, a Randian fantasy-world where productive people (the middle class and the entire working class) can afford to ignore and even denigrate all democratic political process.
The simple truth is that CME Global is too big not to be subject to extreme anti-trust action, regardless of political price. CME Group is a clear signal of the failure of corporate globalism's monster-child, namely global finance capitalism created by the unimpeded flow of capital across all borders, rendering powerless all national and regional regulatory systems.
This is the fundamental problem of globalism at this time of global crisis -- the myth that self-regulation by profit-making institutions can ever take the place of governmental regulation. It's a nearly impossible project, because a system of global capital has evolved that essentially promotes corruption, thus holding individual integrity hostage to a system that rewards irresponsibility and even sociopathic behavior. Nevertheless, it's a project that must be undertaken.
Since the 2008 credit crisis, it has been a matter of faith among regulators that what are called 'over-the-counter markets', run by banks and the subject of billions of dollars of losses in 2008 and 2009, should be reorganized into registered exchanges like the CME. The futures exchanges have been clamoring for this for a long time; a former head of the CFTC – Brooksley Born – made this very argument in front of the Congress in 1998 when the Glass-Steagall Act was being overturned. Given the unprecedented losses investors have now suffered as a result of the MF Global collapse, and given the very fundamental failure of the CME to operate in the way it promised, this argument now looks very hollow. (Numerian)
To clarify, if I understand the situation correctly, Brooksley Born was advocating for exchanges regulated by governmental agencies such as the CFTC -- not for the concept of exchanges regulated by huge and essentially monopolistic global SROs (self-regulating organizations) such as CME Group. That concept rather than Brooksley Born's arguments before Congress is what now look very hollow. This is pretty clear if we remember that her testimony before Congress was back in 1998.
Let me cut to the chase here and pinpoint the real problem – the CME Group. I know I have continuously criticized the CME, even calling it a criminal enterprise on many occasions, but in truth I may have understated the case. Yes, I would agree that the immediate cause of the MF Global bankruptcy was MF Global itself; but what turned it into a disaster of unprecedented proportions was the CME Group. The CME Group was the front line regulator for MFG, responsible for auditing and insuring the safety of customer funds and for guaranteeing those funds in a worst case scenario. The CME failed at every turn. Not only did its auditing fail miserably, the CME failed to step up to the plate to safeguard customer funds after it was discovered that $600 million was missing. ... I know that the federal commodity regulator, the CFTC, has been negligent in the case of MF Global as well, but that does not mitigate the CME’s failures.
Of the twin failures by the CME in the MF Global bankruptcy, clearly of more significance is its failure to stand up and guarantee that all MFG customers would be immediately made whole by the clearinghouse system run by the CME. The clearinghouse system, a consortium of financial firms whose collective finances stand behind every trade, has been the main backstop to all futures trading for many decades. It was widely understood by all market participants that if a clearing member failed, all the other clearing members and the exchange itself would step in to guarantee customer funds and prevent contract default. The CME boasts on its web site that anywhere from $8 billion to $100 billion in protection is available in the event of a clearing member failure. If it was telling the truth, it would seem $600 million should be no problem.
Instead, we all have a very big problem, thanks to the CME Group. ... What the CME Group has done by not immediately guaranteeing all MF Global customers and positions is to undermine belief in the futures market clearing system. ...
Worst of all, even MF Global customers who held no open futures positions and only cash and unencumbered assets, like registered warehouse receipts for silver, gold and other commodities, have found those assets under the control of the bankruptcy trustee. If you do own warehouse receipts on silver or other commodities that are tied up in the MF Global bankruptcy, you must run, not walk, to a securities attorney to secure your legal rights to your property. ....
.... What needs to be done is that the CME Group must be stripped of any regulatory powers it has. As I have long contended, there is a clear conflict of interest in having a for-profit entity set its own rules and regulations, especially an entity that shows nothing but contempt for its own members at large and its customers. The CME Group spends all of its energies encouraging artificial trading schemes, like High Frequency Trading, designed to increase trading fee revenue and not on market integrity and customer protection. The CME Group has just demonstrated to the world its contempt with its failure to stand behind MF Global customers even though it promised to do so beforehand. Next time you watch the CME Group commercial that runs incessantly on financial TV that proclaims how farmers and airlines come to the exchange to hedge their price risks, please keep in mind that the CME just abandoned those farmers and airline customers who were MF Global clients.
One other small bonus that has emerged from this disaster is that the event has revealed as a lie all the nonsense that CME leaders have publicly proclaimed about the integrity of their markets. For the past few years, the smug and arrogant leaders of the CME have testified publicly before congress and the media about how the exchange’s clearinghouse system withstood and avoided the failures of the non-clearinghouse financial system as typified by AIG. CME officials trumpeted the advantages of it being a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO), quite capable of handling regulatory matters without the need for further government regulation. Unfortunately, even high officials of the CFTC were apparently sucked in by the appearance of financial strength and integrity portrayed by the CME’s clearinghouse system of guarantees and the wisdom of letting it continue to regulate itself. That has now all been shown to be a lie. What good are guarantees if they are not honored when need be? What good is self-regulation if it leads to the wholesale abandonment of the customers’ financial interest?
There's a lot of talk these days about the terrible entitlement mentality of the American working class -- mainly that they think they are entitled to jobs or some minimal economic opportunity. Here's the thing: the ultimate entitlement mentality that is actually threatening the downfall of free-enterprise capitalism is the entitlement fantasy promoted by banksters, namely, that capital is entitled to accumulate upwards even when not invested in fundamental economic enterprises and although not subject to any risk whatsoever.
What investors should be entitled to -- although not as the result of some bogus law of invisible-hand economics -- is vigorous criminal prosecution of the perpetrators and profiteers who are systematically looting working people around the world. Not just 99% of the working people, but 100% of us! It's important to realize that investors and working people bear responsibility for the disaster. No one is entitled to regulatory control of destructive profiteering forces unless they are willing to exert the necessary due diligence, including unceasing attention to the fundamentals of democratic political process.
Quoting further from the SilverSeek.com article by Theodore Butler --
The disaster is that for the first time in modern financial history, the main guarantee of the clearinghouse system has completely failed its most important constituent – the customer base. The underlying promise to every participant in the futures market is that your money and open positions are safe from theft and default. This is the very glue that holds the future market together, namely, that all market participants can depend upon strict regulation and oversight to safeguard against fraud and theft. That’s what has made the US organized futures exchange system the envy of the world. Until now.
Numerian tells it like it is --
People from all political slants are seeing a corrupt and broken financial system, operating with impunity, stealing money outright from individual and now institutional investors, with the Obama administration doing absolutely nothing to prosecute the malefactors or fix the infrastructure problems. (Numerian)
What about George Soros' Center for American Progress staffing the Obama White House? Nobody else comes even close to such a money/influence-peddling feat.
Soros is by far the world's biggest lobbyist, active in over 70 countries, according to his own website, giving money to over 500 organizations per year. That's happening to this day.
Ah, thanks, we wrote about the 50% CDS haircut on CDS, but I thought it was just for Greece and a special arrangement, vs. a ruling, generally. Still, which is more evil? Having triple the CDSes out there are bond sell offs?
The most recent article on this topic, and the role ISDA played in allowing the big banks to renege on the basic promise and purpose of the product, is one posted Friday on MarketWatch.
Interesting article. I think we are now beyond any meaningful reform. The financial 'system' is corrupt and rotten to the core with no meaningful checks and balances -once markets don't clear confidence evaporates and market failure is inevitable.
It is a system established and evolved historically to siphon off value from the rest of us and does not add any value to the real world that the majority of us live in. It is indeed an 'enchanted' world of deceit and fraud at all levels that is moving to an end point of systemic failure.
Finally, there is a subgroup forming to read the financial reform legislation, just the "Volcker rule" section to navigate through all of the loopholes.
We did some of that here when the bill was passed. This is one useful thing, to form groups to read through legislation.
I've done it and frankly to read through a 1200 page document, first, let me suggest using thomas.gov and your browser search as well as foxit reader search, plus lots of cut and paste.
Sometimes the loopholes are so obscure, you must reference 2, 3 other existing laws and replace the text with the new, "semicolon", "and" and clause subnumeration switcheroos.
It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle and no matter how well informed, even with a JD you are, navigating through these bills requires a team of researchers.
I'm sure some of our friends have to be involved so I'll try to find out more of this effort. Plenty of people running economics/finance blogs who I am sure can help out.
OMG. What a dire warning numerian and what specific ruling that CDSes on sovereign debt do not have to be paid in full? I'm missing something somewhere, although this circle jerk of sovereign debt, insuring against default, I can believe could come crashing down upon us.
We about screamed here during the so called "financial reform" for not looking at contagion and removing, making illegal, so many of these derivatives.
Whenever I think of Ayn Rand, it's not objectivism, but a movie with Helen Mirren.
Very nice point that derivatives, hedge funds are not adding to the real, production economy, that they are the moochers with their socialize the risk, privatize the reward system.
Soemthing like 73% of all trades are flash trades, which beyond the original programming, means no one is doing any work, even hitting enter.
Logic says the player should be playing with their own money. If they go to the table with money from "shareholders" who assume the company is making productive investments for a return to the shareholder, but instead the upper management gamble for their personal profit or make investments that are so bad they can bet against them for profit, it is logical to say this is not socially productive for the shareholders. More logic says that when money is handled recklessly causing major institutions to collapse, that collapse should not be at the expense of tax-payers. Those same tax-payers who have paid for an insurance system to back their deposits should not see the collapsed institutions rename themselves and insure their bad bets. The Federal Reserve should have some accountability for the money they spend, print and lend because they are supposedly working for tax payers. Tax payers are at the mercy of their government. Casino owners should not support a political system designed to respond only to casino owners. Ayn Rand did not live with an unregulated casino culture. Casino culture is not "free market" and all regulations are not bad.
if you find any official demands endorsed, please post them to discuss.
I view OWS as a presence, an "in your face" presence of people out there pointing to how millions of Americans are getting financially, economically screwed.
I don't think the "powers that be" even take them seriously, never mind entertain even the least little thing legislatively to actually make policy changes.
What I see here is governments, federal, state, local and media simply view OWS as a "PR" problem and want them to "go away".
I haven't heard of a single thing where any politician, beyond Buddy Roemer, GOP Presidential candidate under 100% media black out as if he does not exist, recognize OWS or try to solidify the issues into solid policy proposals.
I think there are a couple of Congress representatives and then some local, but their names are being swept under the rug! I'm pretty sure one Congress rep. has been arrested, maybe yesterday.
I am a firm supporter of OWS, but even I'm starting to feel a bit weary of it all. I'm wondering whether a promise to make things right would be enough to disperse the crowds at this point. And should it? Politicians have given us little to trust on that score. But then, will OWS stick around until all demands are met? Until one or two big issues are resolved? Until they get bored, or until violence escalates to a new level?
Stability is rapidly deteriorating. As much as I hope OWS effects true reforms, I wish they'd leave their physical occupation behind and channel their numbers and passion into converting bank customers into credit union members or writing mass letters to their representatives. They've already spread their message throughout the world; now it's time to act on their beliefs (IMHO).
Maybe we are on to something here. When you swear allegiance to the Constitiution and Laws of the U.S. how can you have a prior pledge to Norquist? Would anyone dare call tax pledges Treason? How do we sue these M/Fs?
It is the common belief of both Marxists and Conservatives that a social revolution needs an elaborate program of everthing it intends to do when it comes to power. History, recent and ancient, shows that this could not be further from the truth. What did the Sons of Liberty do in 1775 through 1777? They went from
borough hall to hall and got every single small touwn in America on board with the revolution. Revolutions only need an ancien regieme to get rid of. We have the worst kind of old regime.
"This sector expands when more housing permits are issued than houses completed. This is the current situation. The data is not necessarily accurate in real time, however. There has been backward revision of data – and since July 2011, the data has been noisy with permits and completions almost in balance." -- from the linked Ecointersect Analysis Blog
You can see a major seasonal cycle in the first graph at the linked webpage. The second graph showing Year-over-Year Growth gives a much more meaningful picture.
I think that the sentence "this sector expands when more housing permits are issued than houses completed" should be preceded by "in times of an expansionary economy."
In the second graph, you can see clear evidence of what I have observed 'on the ground', namely, a tendency since 2009 and even continuing into 2011 for permits for major (subdivision) developments to be approved long before any construction of homes (even before any of the infrastructure) is begun.
I don't know how the Census treats these two levels of permitting, but I do know that investors are taking advantage of low impact fees, available only when governments are desperate to spur growth. This kind of permit acquisition is like rich people buying gold. They don't need it, but it looks like a shelter, a hedge at a time of great uncertainty. They have gold for the anticipated collapse of the USD, and they have land that they purchased years back for its development value. They can't sell their land scheduled for development, (unless willing to take a loss), so they might as well continue with development, locking in super deals on permits.
Sitting on permitted but essentially undeveloped land can have tax advantages, if you do it right.
I'm personally on the look out for special interest agendas trying to take them over, number one being the "no illegal is a nonperson", unlimited migration, immigration and if you disagree, you're a racist xenophobe, agenda.
That said, it seems the marches are really about bail outs for the banks while the U.S. middle class, worker gets screwed.
It's about universities, demanding more foreign students, giving in-state tuition to illegals, at the same time raising tuition and costs so much, Americans are walking out with debt for life and on top of things there are no jobs to pay off that debt with. Additionally the jobs, wages are repressed, while CEOs go home with bonuses, no matter what they do or their company does.
The tools of social mobility, economic fairness, which make this country great, have been destroyed and wealth inequality is literally sucking on the future of many of these people.
How many people have done "everything right", yet are broke, bankrupt, homeless? That has become the American experience vs. the America dream now.
This round-up is a lot more optimistic than the "Ridiculous Statistics At A Glance"! Not saying much, but it's something ... like about Romney and also about Buddy Roemer. If there was ever a case of "I didn't leave the Republican Party, they left me," it's Buddy Roemer. I may write him in, regardless of party, no matter what.
You gotta hand it to David Cay Johnston. I have often advocated for treating Wall Street's gambling as gambling for IRS purposes, but I never thought about gambling debts being unenforceable in US law. That's pure genius. I'll expect that to happen about when prosecutors start to apply RICO to properties where repeated violations of immigration and labor law occur.
We are aware of this stuff, it's kinda in the air. But to actually see it in hard numbers ... awesome.
Excellent blog by BruceJudson! Also, a great title. Thank you!
I caught the same NPR thing the other day, part of a three-part series -- von Hayek, Rand and (last but not least) Keynes. I caught most of the Hayek and Rand shows, but I missed the one on Keynes. Typical of NPR, they mostly presented von Hayek and Rand in the framework that these illuminaries are today satisfying an almost unquenchable thirst on the part of the public for supposedly more-or-less censored teachings in opposition to liberalism experienced as deeply repressive to the masses today! Shades of National Review from half a century ago! Oh well ... anything to please ... somebody.
I thought that what was most interesting about Ayn Rand was her remark in the interview where she actually rejects any and all faith(s) as weakness of character, preferring instead to base the whole of ethics and morality on logic! Now how exactly does the GOP or those who claim exclusive rights to the word 'conservative' ... how do they reconcile their 'social conservative' and their 'economic conservative' things? I can never figure that out. One of the deep mysteries of metaphysics, I suppose.
And, btw, was Rand serious about developing a coherent ethical system based purely on logic? I have held this idea about axiomatics that you must have independent statements that have never been and cannot be proven within your thought system, (your Boolean p's and q's), before you can start to apply logic!
Sometimes I ask this question: "If Karl Marx could come back to life, what would he do?" My answer to that question is that he would start by tossing out Marxism, seeing that the world had changed so much, over the past century and more, that Marxism is no longer of any use except as ancient history.
BruceJudson has developed a kind of deviationist or reductionist approach to Randian philosophy, inquiring where principles reduced from Rand's writings would take us, logically, in the current context? --
I do the same kind of thing with my own historical guru for economic theory, Henry C. Simons. In the last couple of years of his life (1945-1946), Simons was a huge opponent of tariffs and other trade barriers. My opinion is that Simons, in light of what corporate globalism has wrought, would make very different recommendations today. I believe he would advocate some form of protectionism, based on his basic premise that economic policy must be judged according to how well it prevents the centralization of power (how well it enhances and supports individual liberty), with that judgment to be informed by actual experience.
BTW: great analysis about profits. Myself, I like to distinguish 'profits' from 'returns' -- or what I would call "return on investment" or ROI. I like to reserve the word "profit" exactly because it is, as BruceJudson notes, a very useful accounting proxy in the context of actual production of goods and services. But I have to distinguish 'monetary ROI' from ROI in the usual sense, because while ROI has come to indicate some measurable phenomena, those phenomena are not necessarily measurable in monetary terms.
Of course, financial services are, or can be, services. It's just that financial services created and employed only for the monetary benefit of those who own them or provide them ... that's the problem. That would be like a shoemaker who makes shoes only for himself. Or it would be like a group of shoemakers who make millions of shoes and then gets paid $Billions even though they never deliver any shoes to anyone outside their group. Think gold.
Hmm. What about Soros? Of course, I recognize the name and I know a little of the reputation, about besting the Bank of England a few years back in a high-stakes currency game.
More recently, I read something that he wrote where he makes recommendations for resolving the Euro crisis, which I didn't consider fundamental enough to amount to a true progressive reform of the system. But what the heck? He lives in Europe ... and what do I know? Along the same lines, Soros is sometimes identified with the House of Rothschild and, thus, he's probably a globalist such that I wouldn't get along with him at all. But again, he's worth billions of Euros and probably lives on top of a vault filled with gold ... and who am I with my piddling stash of silver?
Anyway, I associate CAP with ThinkProgress.org, and it seems to me that I have occasionally been directed there to find something of value, coming from a link at some website that I frequent (which would not be ThinkProgress). So, to check my overall 'okay' impression, I have just now gone to the ThinkProgress front page, where I find good-to-pretty-good coverage of the Occupy phenomena. For example, from TP article by Zaid Jilani, 18 November 2011 --
I have this worrisome feeling that I am supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction to the name Soros, just like I am supposed to have a knee-jerk reaction to the name Rockefeller or the name Kennedy or the name Warren Buffet or the name Steve Jobs.
I guess Soros is identified with Obama ... but so was Steve Jobs ... and Steve even was identified as a major reason Barack has gone all out for outsourcing. If I knee-jerk negative toward George, won'tl I have to knee-jerk negative toward Steve?
In the case of Warren Buffet, my knee jerks mostly positive, but much more positive for the other Buffet -- Jimmy Buffet ....
What is the diagnosis for lack of a knee-jerk response? Am I already dead?
Excellent AAA++ blog by Numerian! I have one clarification or question -- about CME Group as distinguished from the former CME or Merc. CME Group is the head of the Medusa monstrosity.
Image (public domain) from Wikimedia Commons webpage, Peter Paul Rubens' Medusa
It's evident that the Medusa can only be slain by removing the head from the body. The body is the global financial system, and the head is CME Global. It's like a dragon -- sooner or later, it must be slain, and with this kind of dragon, there's only one way to do it.
From Wikipedia article 'CME Group' --
In short, CME Group represents an unsustainable exponentiation of the Enron phenomenon -- a nightmarish exponentiation of the myth of privatization as panacea for whatever ails the world.
In the MF Global scandal, CME Group has operated to provide an appearance of effective regulation, and the great sin of the CFTC is that they fell for the myth of self-regulation, which turns out to be nothing other than a con-artist scam. All this has been in pursuit of a pseudo-libertarian will-o-the-wisp that commerce and finance need no governmental regulation, a Randian fantasy-world where productive people (the middle class and the entire working class) can afford to ignore and even denigrate all democratic political process.
The simple truth is that CME Global is too big not to be subject to extreme anti-trust action, regardless of political price. CME Group is a clear signal of the failure of corporate globalism's monster-child, namely global finance capitalism created by the unimpeded flow of capital across all borders, rendering powerless all national and regional regulatory systems.
This is the fundamental problem of globalism at this time of global crisis -- the myth that self-regulation by profit-making institutions can ever take the place of governmental regulation. It's a nearly impossible project, because a system of global capital has evolved that essentially promotes corruption, thus holding individual integrity hostage to a system that rewards irresponsibility and even sociopathic behavior. Nevertheless, it's a project that must be undertaken.
To clarify, if I understand the situation correctly, Brooksley Born was advocating for exchanges regulated by governmental agencies such as the CFTC -- not for the concept of exchanges regulated by huge and essentially monopolistic global SROs (self-regulating organizations) such as CME Group. That concept rather than Brooksley Born's arguments before Congress is what now look very hollow. This is pretty clear if we remember that her testimony before Congress was back in 1998.
The following is from article 'An Unmitigated Disaster' by Theodore Butler at SilverSeek.com, posted 11 November 2011.
There's a lot of talk these days about the terrible entitlement mentality of the American working class -- mainly that they think they are entitled to jobs or some minimal economic opportunity. Here's the thing: the ultimate entitlement mentality that is actually threatening the downfall of free-enterprise capitalism is the entitlement fantasy promoted by banksters, namely, that capital is entitled to accumulate upwards even when not invested in fundamental economic enterprises and although not subject to any risk whatsoever.
What investors should be entitled to -- although not as the result of some bogus law of invisible-hand economics -- is vigorous criminal prosecution of the perpetrators and profiteers who are systematically looting working people around the world. Not just 99% of the working people, but 100% of us! It's important to realize that investors and working people bear responsibility for the disaster. No one is entitled to regulatory control of destructive profiteering forces unless they are willing to exert the necessary due diligence, including unceasing attention to the fundamentals of democratic political process.
Quoting further from the SilverSeek.com article by Theodore Butler --
Numerian tells it like it is --
What about George Soros' Center for American Progress staffing the Obama White House? Nobody else comes even close to such a money/influence-peddling feat.
Soros is by far the world's biggest lobbyist, active in over 70 countries, according to his own website, giving money to over 500 organizations per year. That's happening to this day.
Ah, thanks, we wrote about the 50% CDS haircut on CDS, but I thought it was just for Greece and a special arrangement, vs. a ruling, generally. Still, which is more evil? Having triple the CDSes out there are bond sell offs?
The most recent article on this topic, and the role ISDA played in allowing the big banks to renege on the basic promise and purpose of the product, is one posted Friday on MarketWatch.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/europe-bond-dive-rooted-in-greek-cds-de...
Interesting article. I think we are now beyond any meaningful reform. The financial 'system' is corrupt and rotten to the core with no meaningful checks and balances -once markets don't clear confidence evaporates and market failure is inevitable.
It is a system established and evolved historically to siphon off value from the rest of us and does not add any value to the real world that the majority of us live in. It is indeed an 'enchanted' world of deceit and fraud at all levels that is moving to an end point of systemic failure.
Finally, there is a subgroup forming to read the financial reform legislation, just the "Volcker rule" section to navigate through all of the loopholes.
We did some of that here when the bill was passed. This is one useful thing, to form groups to read through legislation.
I've done it and frankly to read through a 1200 page document, first, let me suggest using thomas.gov and your browser search as well as foxit reader search, plus lots of cut and paste.
Sometimes the loopholes are so obscure, you must reference 2, 3 other existing laws and replace the text with the new, "semicolon", "and" and clause subnumeration switcheroos.
It's like putting together a jigsaw puzzle and no matter how well informed, even with a JD you are, navigating through these bills requires a team of researchers.
I'm sure some of our friends have to be involved so I'll try to find out more of this effort. Plenty of people running economics/finance blogs who I am sure can help out.
We have more unprovoked sprays in the face at
OMG. What a dire warning numerian and what specific ruling that CDSes on sovereign debt do not have to be paid in full? I'm missing something somewhere, although this circle jerk of sovereign debt, insuring against default, I can believe could come crashing down upon us.
We about screamed here during the so called "financial reform" for not looking at contagion and removing, making illegal, so many of these derivatives.
Everyone, you should read this article.
Whenever I think of Ayn Rand, it's not objectivism, but a movie with Helen Mirren.
Very nice point that derivatives, hedge funds are not adding to the real, production economy, that they are the moochers with their socialize the risk, privatize the reward system.
Soemthing like 73% of all trades are flash trades, which beyond the original programming, means no one is doing any work, even hitting enter.
Logic says the player should be playing with their own money. If they go to the table with money from "shareholders" who assume the company is making productive investments for a return to the shareholder, but instead the upper management gamble for their personal profit or make investments that are so bad they can bet against them for profit, it is logical to say this is not socially productive for the shareholders. More logic says that when money is handled recklessly causing major institutions to collapse, that collapse should not be at the expense of tax-payers. Those same tax-payers who have paid for an insurance system to back their deposits should not see the collapsed institutions rename themselves and insure their bad bets. The Federal Reserve should have some accountability for the money they spend, print and lend because they are supposedly working for tax payers. Tax payers are at the mercy of their government. Casino owners should not support a political system designed to respond only to casino owners. Ayn Rand did not live with an unregulated casino culture. Casino culture is not "free market" and all regulations are not bad.
if you find any official demands endorsed, please post them to discuss.
I view OWS as a presence, an "in your face" presence of people out there pointing to how millions of Americans are getting financially, economically screwed.
I don't think the "powers that be" even take them seriously, never mind entertain even the least little thing legislatively to actually make policy changes.
What I see here is governments, federal, state, local and media simply view OWS as a "PR" problem and want them to "go away".
I haven't heard of a single thing where any politician, beyond Buddy Roemer, GOP Presidential candidate under 100% media black out as if he does not exist, recognize OWS or try to solidify the issues into solid policy proposals.
I think there are a couple of Congress representatives and then some local, but their names are being swept under the rug! I'm pretty sure one Congress rep. has been arrested, maybe yesterday.
I am a firm supporter of OWS, but even I'm starting to feel a bit weary of it all. I'm wondering whether a promise to make things right would be enough to disperse the crowds at this point. And should it? Politicians have given us little to trust on that score. But then, will OWS stick around until all demands are met? Until one or two big issues are resolved? Until they get bored, or until violence escalates to a new level?
Stability is rapidly deteriorating. As much as I hope OWS effects true reforms, I wish they'd leave their physical occupation behind and channel their numbers and passion into converting bank customers into credit union members or writing mass letters to their representatives. They've already spread their message throughout the world; now it's time to act on their beliefs (IMHO).
Maybe we are on to something here. When you swear allegiance to the Constitiution and Laws of the U.S. how can you have a prior pledge to Norquist? Would anyone dare call tax pledges Treason? How do we sue these M/Fs?
It is the common belief of both Marxists and Conservatives that a social revolution needs an elaborate program of everthing it intends to do when it comes to power. History, recent and ancient, shows that this could not be further from the truth. What did the Sons of Liberty do in 1775 through 1777? They went from
borough hall to hall and got every single small touwn in America on board with the revolution. Revolutions only need an ancien regieme to get rid of. We have the worst kind of old regime.
"This sector expands when more housing permits are issued than houses completed. This is the current situation. The data is not necessarily accurate in real time, however. There has been backward revision of data – and since July 2011, the data has been noisy with permits and completions almost in balance." -- from the linked Ecointersect Analysis Blog
You can see a major seasonal cycle in the first graph at the linked webpage. The second graph showing Year-over-Year Growth gives a much more meaningful picture.
I think that the sentence "this sector expands when more housing permits are issued than houses completed" should be preceded by "in times of an expansionary economy."
In the second graph, you can see clear evidence of what I have observed 'on the ground', namely, a tendency since 2009 and even continuing into 2011 for permits for major (subdivision) developments to be approved long before any construction of homes (even before any of the infrastructure) is begun.
I don't know how the Census treats these two levels of permitting, but I do know that investors are taking advantage of low impact fees, available only when governments are desperate to spur growth. This kind of permit acquisition is like rich people buying gold. They don't need it, but it looks like a shelter, a hedge at a time of great uncertainty. They have gold for the anticipated collapse of the USD, and they have land that they purchased years back for its development value. They can't sell their land scheduled for development, (unless willing to take a loss), so they might as well continue with development, locking in super deals on permits.
Sitting on permitted but essentially undeveloped land can have tax advantages, if you do it right.
I'm personally on the look out for special interest agendas trying to take them over, number one being the "no illegal is a nonperson", unlimited migration, immigration and if you disagree, you're a racist xenophobe, agenda.
That said, it seems the marches are really about bail outs for the banks while the U.S. middle class, worker gets screwed.
It's about universities, demanding more foreign students, giving in-state tuition to illegals, at the same time raising tuition and costs so much, Americans are walking out with debt for life and on top of things there are no jobs to pay off that debt with. Additionally the jobs, wages are repressed, while CEOs go home with bonuses, no matter what they do or their company does.
The tools of social mobility, economic fairness, which make this country great, have been destroyed and wealth inequality is literally sucking on the future of many of these people.
How many people have done "everything right", yet are broke, bankrupt, homeless? That has become the American experience vs. the America dream now.
Pages