which is strange since it's Friday, but if you can write some up, I think that would be great. This one was major. There is also MI consumer index, a bunch of stuff going on with bonuses and so on
and then Ind. Prod./Capacity...which is the one I plan to get to myself. (FYI)_
but yeah, of the people left with any sort of job, they get even further squeezed. Nice contrast with those executive bonuses to be sure.
I disagree with Krugman on financial executives being clueless. Financial institutions know exactly what they are doing.
I completely agree. Krugman is so often all over the landscape and mystifies me with his opinions.
When the banksters walk away with billions and trillions, they most certainly are on top of things, and most likely want to squeeze as much blood out of the turnip as they can probably foresee what is coming.
Real average hourly earnings fell 1.3 percent, seasonally adjusted, from December 2008 to December 2009. A 0.3 percent decline in average weekly hours combined with the decrease in real average hourly earnings resulted in a 1.6 percent decrease in real average weekly earnings during this period
Superficially, it sounds great. Assuming they don't move all their trading overseas. The mention in that CFTC .pdf of the first major hedging exemption granted to J. Aron, later borged into Goldman Sachs, was the beginning of the grand speculator's strategy.
Sounds like a bit of misdirection to this cynic.
ICE (or those specific speculators trading on them) can simply shift their trading overseas, through one of their many subsidiaries (they purchased the International Petroleum Exchange, renamed it ICE Futures Europe, and I believe it is based in London, also own ICE Clear Canada and ICE Clear Europe, as well as others).
There was no mention of TradeSpark, which might also be used in a more convoluted method in speculation, and if that cap-and-trade legislation ends up passing congress, this may actually benefit the speculator side of it by moving the bulk of the speculative trading offshore anyway.
Susan N. Houseman has been researching GDP that should really be attributed to other nations, due to global supply chains, offshore outsourcing, which is falsely attributed to U.S. GDP.
Don't worry about the categories, for the site upgrade, I think I should put together a bunch more than what's available currently.
Sorry about place it in the Instapopulist -- my confusion.
Time permitting, I would have also included the incomparable Antonia Juhasz (no Olive Oil, she). Also, the formidible Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard doc who has ardently publicized and supported the single-payer platform.
Likewise, Elinor Ostrom, who appears to be the first actual deserving recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics. And of course, shoc doc Naomi Klein.
These ladies blogged and mention are public personages who have put themselves and the data out there and argued the facts. This is what makes them both so impressive and admirable.
On the other hand, my favorite draft-dodger and media type, George Will, shakes and quakes at the mere thought of a public and unscripted debate. The same Will who, in the early '90s, wrote a column stating that the best anti-poverty program for any American was a job, then goes whacko in the earlier part of this decade and proclaims that best thing for the American economy is to offshore American jobs.
Corporations fight tooth and nail anything, even when it really won't affect them long term. I mean even the most trivial, such as say on pay, which was only for show, just a shareholder non-binding vote, which isn't going to do jack shit, financial lobbyists spend millions trying to defeat it anyway.
This isn't that big of any effect, I mean it's better than nothing but for the public it's crumbs and of course the financial lobbyists are trying to fight it anyway.
Financial oligarchy are making their veiled threats over this fee. You know that this will crash the economy, that this limit lending, that small businesses will be hurt. Blah. Blah.
1) I saw a number of 4% reduction in lending - so what - do we need all this debt now and see #3.
2) As for small business lending, give me a break, the 50 or so financial conglomerates hit be this went hog wild in the housing sector and left the small business lending to smaller institutions.
3) One word - competition - we have thousands of other smaller institutions including credit unions that can fill any potential hole.
which is a nom de plume as I understand it, but is of the fairer sex, as I understand it....
anywho I think she should be on the list. Daily writing and NC has become a top economics/financial blog too, exposing the corruption and Ponzi financial crisis dance.
Probably Naomi Klein on disaster capitalism should also be here.
Great Post!
BTW folks, alot of people are using the Instapopulist instead of the blogs for posts that really are blog posts.
I put the EI analysis in the Instapopulists simply because they are put in macroecon forum category.
because it is being reported that Chase and BofA may be liable for $1.5 billion each under this fee/tax plan. Boo hoo.
“It’s not a good use of the president’s time to demonize banks or investment banks or hedge funds or any financial institution,” said Bruce Foerster, president of South Beach Capital Markets in Miami and a former executive at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the now-bankrupt securities firm. “Trying to exact this last piece of flesh from the banks is the act of a politician, not the act of the president of the United States.”
Hey buddy, this President is the only thing standing between you and pitchforks. The financial sector is essentially insolvent many financial conglomerates should have been nationalized and recapitalized a long time ago but no instead the policy was to preserve equity and bond holders.
And here come the threats from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
A tax “may restrict the liquidity needed by small businesses to fuel job creation and economic growth,” R. Bruce Josten, the chamber’s top lobbyist, said in the letter. “Such unintended consequences may cost the government more than it hopes to raise with the imposition of such a levy.”
Oh, can someone tell this jack ass that banks are not providing any liquidity now after the largest bailout in U.S. history and NO tax. I take the money and if we have to funnel it back out to small businesses directly through an existing gov't agency such as SBA.
Yeah, this is why I do all of these EIs from "scratch" of by first principles.
The MSM, if they report them or even bloggers, if they report them, either report the headline and even if they report some conclusion, they do not give you the detailed reasoning as to why.
Most report the headlines (see the retail sales and in reference to another headline that was so damn wrong it wasn't funny)
So, this is one of the purposes on the site, we have mimetex (for mathematical equations, see admin forum) and what I want to improve on is graphing directly from spreadsheet data. Honestly I'm too lazy because I usually find the graphs available from gov. and my fav. econ geek site, St. Louis Fed but sometimes we could use some original graphing.
Anywho if you write these up, dig around into the tables and stats for that is where the real answers lie. (buried).
Some people are expecting an inventory bounce to pull us out of recession - but will it materialize? EconomPic has been documenting this 'bounce' - here and here.
unfettered gov't spending. We agree we can chose not to default.
Are we really printing more money when all we are doing is crediting bondholder accounts in order to service our debt? I don't think servicing the debt is what is inflationary - look at our current situation with huge debt load - what's TIPs spread - about 2% - not very inflationary there.
For the same reasons that not all debt is bad. Debt to pay for an medical operation, or to build a factory is a good thing. Debt for everyday consumption is a bad thing.
Same thing for a nation. Debt for an economic emergency is a good thing. But we are entering Year Two of that emergency spending, and we already had chronic deficits even before the emergency.
Because we can print the money means we never have to default, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come without severe, long-lasting costs.
And it won't be a slow adjustment no matter how much they try. Once our foreign creditors realize the situation is no longer tenable there is going to be a rush for the exists, and not everyone is going to be able to get out.
My impression is you really research out deficits.
So, here is what I see. It seems we have confusion over "good debt", i.e. spending that Stimulates a local domestic economy, recycles and after our industrial base, and now U.S. domestic services come back online....the tax revenues and increased GDP will basically feed back to reduce the deficit.
Then, we have "bad debt". To me this is the monetary policy which monetizes the debt, China holding U.S. Treasuries and the interest alone we pay to other nations is a huge part of the debt. Then, cash outlays to private sector who aren't providing that much in the way of services (for profit medical sector, DoD no-bid contracts which are bloated and fail, money is offshored to goods/services abroad), that subtracts, permanently from our long term GDP growth because now we plain owe the money to all of these other nations/industries and we got jack shit for long term growth in return...
Anywho, I think it would be useful, esp. in the "left" side of the public discourse, to dig deep and differentiate between all of this.
It seems right now, due to the major attack on any social safety nets/middle class by those privatization neo-liberal/neo-conservatives both wings of the same bird nuts.....that the minute deficits and debt is raised as a topic, they blow off the entire thing believing it's those guys simply out to destroy what is left of any social structure to help people who are in trouble. The attack on SS being a huge banner which has put some sort of black shroud over debt/deficit topics by many on the left...
no one wants to look it because of the neo's attack on the people.
Anyway, I think it would be an awesome post at least and help folks (not only on the left but always blast back on the right for those thinking all debt/deficit spending is bad or social safety nets are "communist" and so on)
Our currency is key - we are the sovereign issuer of our currency - no one can force us into bankruptcy. Yes, we can issue more credits to credit bondholders accounts. So, insolvency even possible?
If it is not possible then what is the crisis - inflation? And this only a factor if we are at full employment. But if we are at full employment - tax revenues should be much higher - lower deficit and lower debt load.
which is strange since it's Friday, but if you can write some up, I think that would be great. This one was major. There is also MI consumer index, a bunch of stuff going on with bonuses and so on
and then Ind. Prod./Capacity...which is the one I plan to get to myself. (FYI)_
but yeah, of the people left with any sort of job, they get even further squeezed. Nice contrast with those executive bonuses to be sure.
I completely agree. Krugman is so often all over the landscape and mystifies me with his opinions.
When the banksters walk away with billions and trillions, they most certainly are on top of things, and most likely want to squeeze as much blood out of the turnip as they can probably foresee what is coming.
December 2008 to 2009:
They were flat from November to December 2009
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Superficially, it sounds great. Assuming they don't move all their trading overseas. The mention in that CFTC .pdf of the first major hedging exemption granted to J. Aron, later borged into Goldman Sachs, was the beginning of the grand speculator's strategy.
Sounds like a bit of misdirection to this cynic.
ICE (or those specific speculators trading on them) can simply shift their trading overseas, through one of their many subsidiaries (they purchased the International Petroleum Exchange, renamed it ICE Futures Europe, and I believe it is based in London, also own ICE Clear Canada and ICE Clear Europe, as well as others).
There was no mention of TradeSpark, which might also be used in a more convoluted method in speculation, and if that cap-and-trade legislation ends up passing congress, this may actually benefit the speculator side of it by moving the bulk of the speculative trading offshore anyway.
Susan N. Houseman has been researching GDP that should really be attributed to other nations, due to global supply chains, offshore outsourcing, which is falsely attributed to U.S. GDP.
Don't worry about the categories, for the site upgrade, I think I should put together a bunch more than what's available currently.
Sorry about place it in the Instapopulist -- my confusion.
Time permitting, I would have also included the incomparable Antonia Juhasz (no Olive Oil, she). Also, the formidible Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard doc who has ardently publicized and supported the single-payer platform.
Likewise, Elinor Ostrom, who appears to be the first actual deserving recipient of the Nobel Prize for economics. And of course, shoc doc Naomi Klein.
These ladies blogged and mention are public personages who have put themselves and the data out there and argued the facts. This is what makes them both so impressive and admirable.
On the other hand, my favorite draft-dodger and media type, George Will, shakes and quakes at the mere thought of a public and unscripted debate. The same Will who, in the early '90s, wrote a column stating that the best anti-poverty program for any American was a job, then goes whacko in the earlier part of this decade and proclaims that best thing for the American economy is to offshore American jobs.
Love to see him debate that nonsense!
Nothing has changed.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Corporations fight tooth and nail anything, even when it really won't affect them long term. I mean even the most trivial, such as say on pay, which was only for show, just a shareholder non-binding vote, which isn't going to do jack shit, financial lobbyists spend millions trying to defeat it anyway.
This isn't that big of any effect, I mean it's better than nothing but for the public it's crumbs and of course the financial lobbyists are trying to fight it anyway.
Financial oligarchy are making their veiled threats over this fee. You know that this will crash the economy, that this limit lending, that small businesses will be hurt. Blah. Blah.
1) I saw a number of 4% reduction in lending - so what - do we need all this debt now and see #3.
2) As for small business lending, give me a break, the 50 or so financial conglomerates hit be this went hog wild in the housing sector and left the small business lending to smaller institutions.
3) One word - competition - we have thousands of other smaller institutions including credit unions that can fill any potential hole.
Don't believe the bullshit!
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
which is a nom de plume as I understand it, but is of the fairer sex, as I understand it....
anywho I think she should be on the list. Daily writing and NC has become a top economics/financial blog too, exposing the corruption and Ponzi financial crisis dance.
Probably Naomi Klein on disaster capitalism should also be here.
Great Post!
BTW folks, alot of people are using the Instapopulist instead of the blogs for posts that really are blog posts.
I put the EI analysis in the Instapopulists simply because they are put in macroecon forum category.
Just sayin'.
Prof. Pickett's works sounds very interesting.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
because it is being reported that Chase and BofA may be liable for $1.5 billion each under this fee/tax plan. Boo hoo.
Hey buddy, this President is the only thing standing between you and pitchforks. The financial sector is essentially insolvent many financial conglomerates should have been nationalized and recapitalized a long time ago but no instead the policy was to preserve equity and bond holders.
And here come the threats from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
Oh, can someone tell this jack ass that banks are not providing any liquidity now after the largest bailout in U.S. history and NO tax. I take the money and if we have to funnel it back out to small businesses directly through an existing gov't agency such as SBA.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Yeah, this is why I do all of these EIs from "scratch" of by first principles.
The MSM, if they report them or even bloggers, if they report them, either report the headline and even if they report some conclusion, they do not give you the detailed reasoning as to why.
Most report the headlines (see the retail sales and in reference to another headline that was so damn wrong it wasn't funny)
So, this is one of the purposes on the site, we have mimetex (for mathematical equations, see admin forum) and what I want to improve on is graphing directly from spreadsheet data. Honestly I'm too lazy because I usually find the graphs available from gov. and my fav. econ geek site, St. Louis Fed but sometimes we could use some original graphing.
Anywho if you write these up, dig around into the tables and stats for that is where the real answers lie. (buried).
Some people are expecting an inventory bounce to pull us out of recession - but will it materialize? EconomPic has been documenting this 'bounce' - here and here.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
unfettered gov't spending. We agree we can chose not to default.
Are we really printing more money when all we are doing is crediting bondholder accounts in order to service our debt? I don't think servicing the debt is what is inflationary - look at our current situation with huge debt load - what's TIPs spread - about 2% - not very inflationary there.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
For the same reasons that not all debt is bad. Debt to pay for an medical operation, or to build a factory is a good thing. Debt for everyday consumption is a bad thing.
Same thing for a nation. Debt for an economic emergency is a good thing. But we are entering Year Two of that emergency spending, and we already had chronic deficits even before the emergency.
Because we can print the money means we never have to default, but that doesn't mean it doesn't come without severe, long-lasting costs.
And it won't be a slow adjustment no matter how much they try. Once our foreign creditors realize the situation is no longer tenable there is going to be a rush for the exists, and not everyone is going to be able to get out.
Again budget deficits could be inflationary if we were at full employment.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
My impression is you really research out deficits.
So, here is what I see. It seems we have confusion over "good debt", i.e. spending that Stimulates a local domestic economy, recycles and after our industrial base, and now U.S. domestic services come back online....the tax revenues and increased GDP will basically feed back to reduce the deficit.
Then, we have "bad debt". To me this is the monetary policy which monetizes the debt, China holding U.S. Treasuries and the interest alone we pay to other nations is a huge part of the debt. Then, cash outlays to private sector who aren't providing that much in the way of services (for profit medical sector, DoD no-bid contracts which are bloated and fail, money is offshored to goods/services abroad), that subtracts, permanently from our long term GDP growth because now we plain owe the money to all of these other nations/industries and we got jack shit for long term growth in return...
Anywho, I think it would be useful, esp. in the "left" side of the public discourse, to dig deep and differentiate between all of this.
It seems right now, due to the major attack on any social safety nets/middle class by those privatization neo-liberal/neo-conservatives both wings of the same bird nuts.....that the minute deficits and debt is raised as a topic, they blow off the entire thing believing it's those guys simply out to destroy what is left of any social structure to help people who are in trouble. The attack on SS being a huge banner which has put some sort of black shroud over debt/deficit topics by many on the left...
no one wants to look it because of the neo's attack on the people.
Anyway, I think it would be an awesome post at least and help folks (not only on the left but always blast back on the right for those thinking all debt/deficit spending is bad or social safety nets are "communist" and so on)
Our currency is key - we are the sovereign issuer of our currency - no one can force us into bankruptcy. Yes, we can issue more credits to credit bondholders accounts. So, insolvency even possible?
If it is not possible then what is the crisis - inflation? And this only a factor if we are at full employment. But if we are at full employment - tax revenues should be much higher - lower deficit and lower debt load.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Pages