because of the under funded pension problem of government pensions.
I agree more with what you say, "It's like instead they are cult, super stars. Warren Buffet is treated like a God, same with Soros, same with Bill Gates" Oddly Huff Po people do treat Soros as some god like figure but he is a financial shark. In a heartbeat he would eat their financial dinner.
Also the Hollywood types are big on my list. My brother-in-law works for some of them. As a financial guy he is a hired hand in their eyes. But he has a lot of disdain for them.
They talk about how much they care, they have a liberal bend but they are some of the most greedy, self centered narcissistic people on earth. They use every loophole available to dodge taxes but will go to an open mic and tell how we need taxes.
A show that makes me ill is Hollywood Tonight (or what ever it is titled). I could care less what those pampered pooches are doing to them self or to others.
Shall we even talk about the $millions payed to chase or catch a ball?
We are living in a very, very strange time. It is like a casino. You either hit it big or you wallow in the sallow of what was once a robust middle class.
Great post and I have no idea why the focus on public service unions instead of the outrageous executive class/pay and corporate governance.
It's like instead they are cult, super stars. Warren Buffet is treated like a God, same with Soros, same with Bill Gates and on and on (I'm picking "liberal" to show, executive class knows no political persuasion and also these folks, when it comes to their agenda or money, will screw the middle class just like the right! Notice Buffet's lobbying on derivatives!)
Also, the site title is to take the real Populist outrage and redirect it where it belongs. Your call out on the "twist" by corporate and special interests to redirect populist outrage to the wrong groups and their amazing success at doing that....is a worthy goal to do on this site!
Since this site is issue per issue, stat per stat and only economics. He is right on a number of things. That said, we're just going on economics here and what the statistics/facts are and in this case, it's understandable why this has so much bi-partisan support. There are a host of examples where the "left meets right" because the facts are so glaring. I'm thinking "Pat Buchanan" meets "Ralph Nader" on trade as one.
why some of us like the idea of a Ron Paul. He is one of the very few politicians that don't confuse you with their position. Our many, many Presidents have all shown that they are not the people who they present during their run-up to the office.
These people in charge now are always trying to pull off shifty deals. The financial reform talk also has something thrown into it that handcuffs the natural health world. I am one of those healthy nice word (mature upper middle age) people that stay away from doctors drugs, often visit health food stores and I don't need the gov stopping me from doing so. Ron Paul would never let it happen.
Imagine closing many military bases around the world or should I say, policeman of the world bases. Ron Paul supports it.
I think these are some other things he supports. I'm not a Ron Paul junkie and can't say for 100% certainity.
The Department of Education helped bring us No Child Left Behind. What a fiasco that was and Ron Paul would end such departments.
Ron Paul is not a friend of the IRS.
He would probably cut back the $billions of waste on a drug war that isn't working now nor will it ever work.
For many years he has been supporting an audit of the FRB
On and on it goes. I don't think he is a Libertarian and not anti-regulation but would create a more manageable gov. The larger the gov the more nonsense the elected officials can lay upon us.
Of course there are things I've heard him say that I don't agree with but he sure is respectable in his positions. Which is why he will never be President. Too truthful.
Maybe it is time for you to entertain real Change and think Ron Paul. :)
which is just astounding frankly. I have yet to read anything and I am not a Ron Paul fan frankly but do believe there needs to be much more transparency and I mean when the Fed runs amok, there's no recourse. I have yet to see an argument that I can say "ok, that's valid". Have you read an argument that really seems to make sense as to why we cannot audit the fed beyond the FOMC/monetary meetings, the rates and so on (which will move markets in a whisper)?
HuffPo was reporting that 8 Senators who voted against this last April have changed their votes making something like 67 Senators in favor of this.
Its already passed the House right?
So lets say it passes does Obama veto this while barking about financial reform? Seems like a contrarian position to me if he does and something that will really bite him in the butt with the non kool aid voters.
Why we as a nation cowtow to this privately held quasi government agency is beyond me.
I agree with URDRWHO a lot of people really don't understand the Fed or why it should be audited. I mean its owned by the banks lending money to the banks. Thats simple enough in my mind - they need some oversight.
Seriously. Since when has the unconstitutionality of anything made a difference when it comes to the banksters and the Fed.
You might look at the derivatives post. This is a $600 trillion dollar market, yes you read that right. So, in spite of the fact many of these things are either fictional or worse than gambling, I'll be we see no reforms.
I think that's what the Fed is all about too, they "took" a bunch of these worthless things in exchange for loans.
It's seriously depressing because odds on, we're going to have a worse disaster than 2008.
I gotta wonder also, just how much money, investment capital and so on has been sucked out of the real economy in order to create and trade these things.
Is the Federal Reserve an arm of government? Yes, the executive branch does lobby, but one would think the Fed ahould be more like the Supreme Court, and not use public funds to influence legislation. If Congressional oversight is to mean anything, the Fed should be required to testify but not allowed to lobby.
Frank T.
they don't believe this is enough or that it will stop contagion.
Jim, you might try venturing into the world of blogging by writing an Instapopulist sometime. Some of your comments are so good, details, they are really mini-reports.
Several articles are pointing out that rather than unsellable bank bailouts German and French politicians are bailing those banks out through the Greek bailouts which is an easier though still unpopular option.
I'm betting Merkel changed her mind under tremendous pressure from German banks that were close to losing a ton of money.
The banks get their money right away rather than a series of payments.
Grim on HuffPo has managed to get some emails on the Federal Reserve lobbying activity.
There was a bait n switch on a Fed Audit in the House and now they are trying the same tactic in the Senate.
They are claiming this would interfere with the FOMC policy/meetings debates but the Sander amendment excludes interest rate/monetary policy from the audit.
What this seems to show is these loans are still Toxic regardless. It doesn't matter who is paying on them a Neg-Am Opt-ARM with balloon payment will blow up again.
Really. I think they almost had that with their secrecy. Then to stop it, they publicly announced a guarantee on money market funds.
There is only one reality I can think of and that's the global markets, other nations using transparency against the U.S. economy, i.e. a national security interest.
But I've yet to hear any rational justification. Instead we see $2.32 trillion dollars buying god knows what to who and being a glorified back door bail out and buying up god knows what worthless "assets" and putting the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for them.
MTGM blog put up a post title "you can't handle the truth" and if you read the Greenspan preventing a warning that housing was in a major bubble...again the claim is Americans are just not "sophisticated enough" to understand.
I will never forget watching people being frenzied during the housing bubble, buying up this and that, claiming they would rent it out to make payments at rents 20x what the local market would support, taking on ridiculous loan terms because "we've got to get in before prices rise" or "no worries, we're going to sell this in 3 years" and on and on.
It was an obvious bubble to anyone with an ounce of financial sanity and they could have stopped it, yet claimed "American's were not sophisticated enough".
I honestly do not know about Sherrod Brown's break up the big banks based on a percentage of GDP. The focus on financial reform should be contagion, systemic risk and fraud in my view. Then gambling with people's private money or taxpayer money should be banned, period.
So, that all implies at least the Volcker rule and a banning of some derivatives, and I say an approval to even peddle a "new financial product", where that new "financial product" needs to be evaluated for accuracy, transparency, contagion and systemic risk potential and outright fraud.
But on the audit the fed deal, I just cannot find a rational reason to justify keeping things secret.
Jack Nicholson said it best: "You (we) can't handle the truth!"
Then Greenspan is reported to have said he did not want leaking out (of FRB meetings) the details of a problem which "only we understand."
This secrecy is said by Bernanke to prevent runs on banks. We won't tell you because you might react rationally by protecting your assets. The FRB relies on our buying into a mass illusion (or delusion) that we can trust the financial elites to act in our best interests.
If "Nobody saw it coming," was it because of a lack of transparency at the Fed? The Tea Party people should channel their rage and get behind this effort and see which of our leaders is really wearing clothes. Is our country making "Liar's loans" to other countries in the interest of protecting commercial banks?
If the Sanders amendment does not get the 60 votes (Senate rule, sorry!), let's have a recorded vote so we can publish the names of the 41 who opposed it.
but I doubt it is going to happen, at least not now. I have that funny feeling that a lot of money went to the well connected and for things outside of propping up failing entities.
I am amazed at the positions of some people. I was on a forum of people who could not understand why someone would want to see an audit done on the FRB; actually arguing with people that called themselves progressive thinking people. They felt that the FRB is a quasi government entity and is above reproach.
To me auditing the FRB is not a political party platform but makes reasonable financial sense to see where the money went. If the President is really big on transparency he would give his support for an audit.
But why do I feel that none of them want it? Skeletons falling out of closets could be one reason.
but is the equity transferred to the new owner? i.e. to avoid foreclosure they transfer the mortgage but the total loan amount due, is it less than the value of the home?
and can't they refinance or what exactly is the deal with this?
I mean I see the shadow inventory question, no doubt but in terms of real buyers/sellers is this a way to avoid foreclosure and get a good deal for it depends on the terms and total price from what I can tell.
My brother just copied me on an email he sent to Dr. Housing Bubble about this. Here's a cut from it:
For a nominal fee of $40 I would be granted access to their database of OVER 547 properties in the 95747 zip code. The current owners of these properties are anywhere from 60-90 days late on the mortgage payment. I am suppose to contact the owner to work out a showing and bring the mortgage payment current. At that time the deed and title would be transferred into my name and would assume the loan.
What has just happened was that the length of loan, loan amount, and loan terms have been unloaded onto me and the current delinquent owner is relieved of the debt. No application, employment verification, of income verification was done ... they only ask that I make 2x the asking rental
payment.
This is even worse than the housing bubble days. Of perhaps I should say, this is a continuation of the housing bubble. It hasn't fully popped yet.
making someone else's mortgage current, plus "taking over" their mortgage? I mean what's the sale price of the house itself? I imagine in Sacramento they would have to have 50% equity for that even to make financial sense, else someone would be buying a house for more than it's worth.
because of the under funded pension problem of government pensions.
I agree more with what you say, "It's like instead they are cult, super stars. Warren Buffet is treated like a God, same with Soros, same with Bill Gates" Oddly Huff Po people do treat Soros as some god like figure but he is a financial shark. In a heartbeat he would eat their financial dinner.
Also the Hollywood types are big on my list. My brother-in-law works for some of them. As a financial guy he is a hired hand in their eyes. But he has a lot of disdain for them.
They talk about how much they care, they have a liberal bend but they are some of the most greedy, self centered narcissistic people on earth. They use every loophole available to dodge taxes but will go to an open mic and tell how we need taxes.
A show that makes me ill is Hollywood Tonight (or what ever it is titled). I could care less what those pampered pooches are doing to them self or to others.
Shall we even talk about the $millions payed to chase or catch a ball?
We are living in a very, very strange time. It is like a casino. You either hit it big or you wallow in the sallow of what was once a robust middle class.
Great post and I have no idea why the focus on public service unions instead of the outrageous executive class/pay and corporate governance.
It's like instead they are cult, super stars. Warren Buffet is treated like a God, same with Soros, same with Bill Gates and on and on (I'm picking "liberal" to show, executive class knows no political persuasion and also these folks, when it comes to their agenda or money, will screw the middle class just like the right! Notice Buffet's lobbying on derivatives!)
Also, the site title is to take the real Populist outrage and redirect it where it belongs. Your call out on the "twist" by corporate and special interests to redirect populist outrage to the wrong groups and their amazing success at doing that....is a worthy goal to do on this site!
Since this site is issue per issue, stat per stat and only economics. He is right on a number of things. That said, we're just going on economics here and what the statistics/facts are and in this case, it's understandable why this has so much bi-partisan support. There are a host of examples where the "left meets right" because the facts are so glaring. I'm thinking "Pat Buchanan" meets "Ralph Nader" on trade as one.
Paul is pushing a proposal with cosponsorhip, to audit the Fed. The idea is to out the $2Trillion lent to the banks and
the $4.6Trillion credit line.
Which leads us to a outline of real reform:
- Bust the Trusts separate banks, investment banks, brokers.
- Use the CoC to do aggressive audits of banks as before the 90's
- Audit the Fed.
- Speculate with equity not bank debt - e.g. Long Term Capital.
why some of us like the idea of a Ron Paul. He is one of the very few politicians that don't confuse you with their position. Our many, many Presidents have all shown that they are not the people who they present during their run-up to the office.
These people in charge now are always trying to pull off shifty deals. The financial reform talk also has something thrown into it that handcuffs the natural health world. I am one of those healthy nice word (mature upper middle age) people that stay away from doctors drugs, often visit health food stores and I don't need the gov stopping me from doing so. Ron Paul would never let it happen.
Imagine closing many military bases around the world or should I say, policeman of the world bases. Ron Paul supports it.
I think these are some other things he supports. I'm not a Ron Paul junkie and can't say for 100% certainity.
The Department of Education helped bring us No Child Left Behind. What a fiasco that was and Ron Paul would end such departments.
Ron Paul is not a friend of the IRS.
He would probably cut back the $billions of waste on a drug war that isn't working now nor will it ever work.
For many years he has been supporting an audit of the FRB
On and on it goes. I don't think he is a Libertarian and not anti-regulation but would create a more manageable gov. The larger the gov the more nonsense the elected officials can lay upon us.
Of course there are things I've heard him say that I don't agree with but he sure is respectable in his positions. Which is why he will never be President. Too truthful.
Maybe it is time for you to entertain real Change and think Ron Paul. :)
which is just astounding frankly. I have yet to read anything and I am not a Ron Paul fan frankly but do believe there needs to be much more transparency and I mean when the Fed runs amok, there's no recourse. I have yet to see an argument that I can say "ok, that's valid". Have you read an argument that really seems to make sense as to why we cannot audit the fed beyond the FOMC/monetary meetings, the rates and so on (which will move markets in a whisper)?
HuffPo was reporting that 8 Senators who voted against this last April have changed their votes making something like 67 Senators in favor of this.
Its already passed the House right?
So lets say it passes does Obama veto this while barking about financial reform? Seems like a contrarian position to me if he does and something that will really bite him in the butt with the non kool aid voters.
Why we as a nation cowtow to this privately held quasi government agency is beyond me.
I agree with URDRWHO a lot of people really don't understand the Fed or why it should be audited. I mean its owned by the banks lending money to the banks. Thats simple enough in my mind - they need some oversight.
Seriously. Since when has the unconstitutionality of anything made a difference when it comes to the banksters and the Fed.
You might look at the derivatives post. This is a $600 trillion dollar market, yes you read that right. So, in spite of the fact many of these things are either fictional or worse than gambling, I'll be we see no reforms.
I think that's what the Fed is all about too, they "took" a bunch of these worthless things in exchange for loans.
It's seriously depressing because odds on, we're going to have a worse disaster than 2008.
I gotta wonder also, just how much money, investment capital and so on has been sucked out of the real economy in order to create and trade these things.
Is the Federal Reserve an arm of government? Yes, the executive branch does lobby, but one would think the Fed ahould be more like the Supreme Court, and not use public funds to influence legislation. If Congressional oversight is to mean anything, the Fed should be required to testify but not allowed to lobby.
Frank T.
they don't believe this is enough or that it will stop contagion.
Jim, you might try venturing into the world of blogging by writing an Instapopulist sometime. Some of your comments are so good, details, they are really mini-reports.
Several articles are pointing out that rather than unsellable bank bailouts German and French politicians are bailing those banks out through the Greek bailouts which is an easier though still unpopular option.
I'm betting Merkel changed her mind under tremendous pressure from German banks that were close to losing a ton of money.
The banks get their money right away rather than a series of payments.
Taxpayers payout to the banks again.
French & German Banks Being Bailed Out
Grim on HuffPo has managed to get some emails on the Federal Reserve lobbying activity.
There was a bait n switch on a Fed Audit in the House and now they are trying the same tactic in the Senate.
They are claiming this would interfere with the FOMC policy/meetings debates but the Sander amendment excludes interest rate/monetary policy from the audit.
What this seems to show is these loans are still Toxic regardless. It doesn't matter who is paying on them a Neg-Am Opt-ARM with balloon payment will blow up again.
There were some disclosures on Maiden Lane III and it was horrifying. NC reviews those disclosures to amplify the need for a Federal Reserve audit.
Really. I think they almost had that with their secrecy. Then to stop it, they publicly announced a guarantee on money market funds.
There is only one reality I can think of and that's the global markets, other nations using transparency against the U.S. economy, i.e. a national security interest.
But I've yet to hear any rational justification. Instead we see $2.32 trillion dollars buying god knows what to who and being a glorified back door bail out and buying up god knows what worthless "assets" and putting the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for them.
MTGM blog put up a post title "you can't handle the truth" and if you read the Greenspan preventing a warning that housing was in a major bubble...again the claim is Americans are just not "sophisticated enough" to understand.
I will never forget watching people being frenzied during the housing bubble, buying up this and that, claiming they would rent it out to make payments at rents 20x what the local market would support, taking on ridiculous loan terms because "we've got to get in before prices rise" or "no worries, we're going to sell this in 3 years" and on and on.
It was an obvious bubble to anyone with an ounce of financial sanity and they could have stopped it, yet claimed "American's were not sophisticated enough".
I honestly do not know about Sherrod Brown's break up the big banks based on a percentage of GDP. The focus on financial reform should be contagion, systemic risk and fraud in my view. Then gambling with people's private money or taxpayer money should be banned, period.
So, that all implies at least the Volcker rule and a banning of some derivatives, and I say an approval to even peddle a "new financial product", where that new "financial product" needs to be evaluated for accuracy, transparency, contagion and systemic risk potential and outright fraud.
But on the audit the fed deal, I just cannot find a rational reason to justify keeping things secret.
Jack Nicholson said it best: "You (we) can't handle the truth!"
Then Greenspan is reported to have said he did not want leaking out (of FRB meetings) the details of a problem which "only we understand."
This secrecy is said by Bernanke to prevent runs on banks. We won't tell you because you might react rationally by protecting your assets. The FRB relies on our buying into a mass illusion (or delusion) that we can trust the financial elites to act in our best interests.
If "Nobody saw it coming," was it because of a lack of transparency at the Fed? The Tea Party people should channel their rage and get behind this effort and see which of our leaders is really wearing clothes. Is our country making "Liar's loans" to other countries in the interest of protecting commercial banks?
If the Sanders amendment does not get the 60 votes (Senate rule, sorry!), let's have a recorded vote so we can publish the names of the 41 who opposed it.
Frank T.
but I doubt it is going to happen, at least not now. I have that funny feeling that a lot of money went to the well connected and for things outside of propping up failing entities.
I am amazed at the positions of some people. I was on a forum of people who could not understand why someone would want to see an audit done on the FRB; actually arguing with people that called themselves progressive thinking people. They felt that the FRB is a quasi government entity and is above reproach.
To me auditing the FRB is not a political party platform but makes reasonable financial sense to see where the money went. If the President is really big on transparency he would give his support for an audit.
But why do I feel that none of them want it? Skeletons falling out of closets could be one reason.
but is the equity transferred to the new owner? i.e. to avoid foreclosure they transfer the mortgage but the total loan amount due, is it less than the value of the home?
and can't they refinance or what exactly is the deal with this?
I mean I see the shadow inventory question, no doubt but in terms of real buyers/sellers is this a way to avoid foreclosure and get a good deal for it depends on the terms and total price from what I can tell.
My brother just copied me on an email he sent to Dr. Housing Bubble about this. Here's a cut from it:
This is even worse than the housing bubble days. Of perhaps I should say, this is a continuation of the housing bubble. It hasn't fully popped yet.
making someone else's mortgage current, plus "taking over" their mortgage? I mean what's the sale price of the house itself? I imagine in Sacramento they would have to have 50% equity for that even to make financial sense, else someone would be buying a house for more than it's worth.
Pages