A group of Democrats friendly to Wall Street interests forced a delay in consideration of the landmark financial regulatory reform bill scheduled to hit the House floor on Wednesday, Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told reporters in the Speaker's lobby.
Frank accused the New Democrat Coalition of blocking the bill because its members are being prodded by big banks to abolish the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and to allow major financial institutions to avoid state laws tougher than federal regulations.
Wow, the party that loves Wall Street does it again. Amazing, story yesterday was that GOP was meeting behind closed doors planning how to kill reform. It looks like these Robert Rubin Dems beat them to the punch.
Can you uprate and read the derivatives post? This is moving beyond belief quickly and we're missing the boat ....we're going to get gutted legislation if we don't move (probably happen anyway, but it's a matter of hours as I understand the legislative process). Looks like we need "all hands on deck".
Well, you jumped into this fray way after it happened which resulted in the "Good-bye Cruel World" on Dailykos (which ya know, DK isn't exactly always statistics oriented, so ...)
and when I saw that diatribe against the entire economics blogosphere, I assuredly "shook my head" too....
But this name calling stuff takes the cake.
But in terms of readers, yes EP is more popular.
As you can see here, here, here (#52 vs. #251) and here (Technorati 1437 vs. 3542).
So, that said, you've had your say, my response to this bullshit, is just that.
So, EP is a community site. We're growing to the point I think we're going to have to get new servers and I think we should just continue to do our thing, encourage others who have insight to write as well and make EP the best damn community economics blog we can.
I'm not in high school last I checked so I don't want to waste much more time on this absurdity.
He doesn't realize just how petty he has made himself look.
I went out of my way to be fair to Bonddad, even to the point of taking heat from some of his critics. Instead of having a reasonable reply, he takes everything personal.
To which I say: Great! We look reasonable and calculated. He looks petty and insecure.
If you were trying to decide which economics blog to read based on these two essays, which would you chose? Obviously EP.
BTW, as for his reply, he makes several mistakes:
1) "To argue that using graphs is bad economics is..." a strawman is what it is. That isn't even close to what I said. Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it isn't even the same game.
2) "Technical analysis is the analysis of price charts for trading purposes."
That much is true. What Bonddad doesn't realize is that is exactly the way he is using them. I have no problem with that. It's Bonddad that is overly sensitive about it.
Bonddad was the one who decided to call names and lump together everyone who disagrees with him. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to his mudslinging. I'm not here for it.
is in their multipliers they describe assumptions. Those are hire Americans and buy Americans and this does conform to Keynesian economics, to keep temporary government expenditures within the domestic economy to be stimulated.
Even better, they analyzed projects based on their final contribution to national GDP and that includes the efficiency improvements obtained by select infrastructure projects.
It's also clear, from the GAO, CBO, private analysis, that tax cuts do not give as much "bang for the buck" but to me
the real issue is once again, these "plans" are skewed towards larger multi-million dollar businesses.
of being able to say "I was right" "I called the bottom before anyone else". Good luck with that.
To me there is a lot more to the story. We have serious economic structural defects that will not show up in charts. And that is what we are doing here - IMO - is trying to make the case for a better stronger economic structure that benefits the most people instead of a select few.
Are they truly trying to totally discredit Keynesian economics? Again, small businesses are low on cash and have no access to credit - how the fuck are they going to hire anyone and have enough for capital expenditures.
Bonddad just insulted us and called us "Economic idiots" in a blog title.
Moreover, because you did this call out piece, instead of focusing on the many other economics bloggers who have said he's dead wrong, which we for the most part have stayed out of that blogosphere melodrama until now.
He's now putting all of the focus on us.
What a charming guy.
Well, Bonddad, at least we're not grandiose and rude, busy poo pooing the entire economic blogosphere.
Secondly, Bonddad claims we do not know the "first thing" and do not use charts.
Obviously he has never read the site or bothered to note all of the charts, stats and references.
I guess all of those with higher education in econ, public policy, posting on this site, esp. those who are Professors, from top tier schools, all just a bunch of wankers.
I'd had it with that sort of bogus insult du jour crap.
what's the point. Are they going to force lenders to lend? I doubt it. Two things either lenders' balance sheets are still that screwed up or lenders are realizing, particularly the financial conglomerates, that they don't have to make loans to make money. Their proprietary trading programs will save them (helped by cheap money).
because he has said reinstate Glass-Stegall and some other very good juju.
Yeah, I know his history but honestly I think if Nixon were alive today he would be called a card carrying pinko socialist, environmentalist, flower power bleeding heart in comparison to some of the sanity going on.
I knew Volcker's history too so all of this surprised me but he's been forced out of power by team Larry "Rubin" Summers so that tells you he's obviously recommending better stuff for that to happen. ;)_
Please encourage common, probably our more information loaded commentor to write. ;)
Then I believe midtowng wrote up a blog post about how states will soon be downgraded and so on.
Yes, they also will not face any reality whatsoever on the costs of illegal immigration. I mean it's pretty ridiculous and impractical IMHO, with CA being one of the worst.
Then, they won't cut anything where a "special favor" is involved.
Unfortunately, the Feds will be limited in their ability to save Illinois and many, many other states from collapse. Not because the Feds are powerless per se, but because the Feds have wasted precious time and resources in support of the financial oligarchy, which has made the states' predicaments a fait accomplis. Listen to what John Mauldin has to say:
The lack of investment in the creation of private sector jobs will ultimately seal the fate of not only the states, but the federal government as well.
I began to question Bonddad when he began praising Paul Volcker. That's over a year ago, now, I believe. Anyone who remembers the 1980s and who wasn't part of the financial ruling class, or a toady for the financial oligrachy, remembers that Volcker's high interest rate squeeze on inflation wrecked half the U.S. industrial base, and laid the other half open to financial predators like Mike Ivan Boesky, Ron Perlman, Peter Peterson, Bill Simon, Kohlberg Kravis and Roberts, and the whole slew of "buyout" bandits. For anyone who believed that the real economy meant manufacturing and transportation, the 1980s were pure, unadulterated hell, and there can be no forgiving Paul Volcker for unleashing the dogs of usury.
But I remember when Bonddad was writing some great material focusing on the growth of debt as an indicator of a fake recovery, like you quote. The question is: what happened to him?
Well, he's a bond trader, as well as a lawyer, I believe. And I think it is the very, very rare person who can make a living in the financial markets, and still retain his or her soul intact. I think that as the financial crisis progressed from mid-2007 to its climax in Sept 2008, there were people like me who pumped out repeated jeremiads excoriating the financial markets as being net drains on the economy. I believe Bonddad reached a point where he realized that if those jeremiads were correct, than the way he made a living was morally unacceptable. One way out of the soul-wrenching realization would be to begin believing that the financial crisis was just a sort of massive correction, not an actual breakdown of the financial system that called for the radical transformation of that system.
These kinds of epic struggles that take place within one person is the stuff of great literature, and make great tragedies. Like Macbeth.
My major point was that the gloom-and-doomers and the green shooters were using entirely different methodology.
I can sort of see the Green Shooters point...as long as you take an entirely different economy and assume that everything is still the same.
Glad to see you comment. Can you change your account email address for your old one is dead city and I've lost the new one.
I whole heartily agree with this and glad to see Demand side econ spelled out more clearly. This is exactly the point, people need jobs, businesses need revenues, people need income to go out and buy things from other businesses.
I forgot also to mention the absurd tight credit to small business. They aren't doing much it appears on that front either.
Frankly some of this sounds like someone has household chores they never got around to, like home repair and thought somehow that would make a nice jobs program.
First, the administration is completely losing it's credibility with the populace. The latest Gallup poll shows Obama's approval rating is down to 47%.
According to Huffpost: Bank-Friendly Dems Shut Down House, Threaten to Kill Wall Street Reform.
Wow, the party that loves Wall Street does it again. Amazing, story yesterday was that GOP was meeting behind closed doors planning how to kill reform. It looks like these Robert Rubin Dems beat them to the punch.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
I haven't yet, it's on the list.
Can you uprate and read the derivatives post? This is moving beyond belief quickly and we're missing the boat ....we're going to get gutted legislation if we don't move (probably happen anyway, but it's a matter of hours as I understand the legislative process). Looks like we need "all hands on deck".
and this is my final say on all things "Bonddad":
Well, you jumped into this fray way after it happened which resulted in the "Good-bye Cruel World" on Dailykos (which ya know, DK isn't exactly always statistics oriented, so ...)
and when I saw that diatribe against the entire economics blogosphere, I assuredly "shook my head" too....
But this name calling stuff takes the cake.
But in terms of readers, yes EP is more popular.
As you can see here, here, here (#52 vs. #251) and here (Technorati 1437 vs. 3542).
So, that said, you've had your say, my response to this bullshit, is just that.
So, EP is a community site. We're growing to the point I think we're going to have to get new servers and I think we should just continue to do our thing, encourage others who have insight to write as well and make EP the best damn community economics blog we can.
I'm not in high school last I checked so I don't want to waste much more time on this absurdity.
He doesn't realize just how petty he has made himself look.
I went out of my way to be fair to Bonddad, even to the point of taking heat from some of his critics. Instead of having a reasonable reply, he takes everything personal.
To which I say: Great! We look reasonable and calculated. He looks petty and insecure.
If you were trying to decide which economics blog to read based on these two essays, which would you chose? Obviously EP.
BTW, as for his reply, he makes several mistakes:
1) "To argue that using graphs is bad economics is..." a strawman is what it is. That isn't even close to what I said. Not only is it not in the same ballpark, it isn't even the same game.
2) "Technical analysis is the analysis of price charts for trading purposes."
That much is true. What Bonddad doesn't realize is that is exactly the way he is using them. I have no problem with that. It's Bonddad that is overly sensitive about it.
Bonddad was the one who decided to call names and lump together everyone who disagrees with him. As far as I'm concerned he is welcome to his mudslinging. I'm not here for it.
is in their multipliers they describe assumptions. Those are hire Americans and buy Americans and this does conform to Keynesian economics, to keep temporary government expenditures within the domestic economy to be stimulated.
Even better, they analyzed projects based on their final contribution to national GDP and that includes the efficiency improvements obtained by select infrastructure projects.
It's also clear, from the GAO, CBO, private analysis, that tax cuts do not give as much "bang for the buck" but to me
the real issue is once again, these "plans" are skewed towards larger multi-million dollar businesses.
10.9 million jobs is massive.
of being able to say "I was right" "I called the bottom before anyone else". Good luck with that.
To me there is a lot more to the story. We have serious economic structural defects that will not show up in charts. And that is what we are doing here - IMO - is trying to make the case for a better stronger economic structure that benefits the most people instead of a select few.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Are they truly trying to totally discredit Keynesian economics? Again, small businesses are low on cash and have no access to credit - how the fuck are they going to hire anyone and have enough for capital expenditures.
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
Bonddad just insulted us and called us "Economic idiots" in a blog title.
Moreover, because you did this call out piece, instead of focusing on the many other economics bloggers who have said he's dead wrong, which we for the most part have stayed out of that blogosphere melodrama until now.
He's now putting all of the focus on us.
What a charming guy.
Well, Bonddad, at least we're not grandiose and rude, busy poo pooing the entire economic blogosphere.
Secondly, Bonddad claims we do not know the "first thing" and do not use charts.
Obviously he has never read the site or bothered to note all of the charts, stats and references.
I guess all of those with higher education in econ, public policy, posting on this site, esp. those who are Professors, from top tier schools, all just a bunch of wankers.
I'd had it with that sort of bogus insult du jour crap.
here.
Only $50 billion for more infrastructure projects.
Still vague on tax cut for "hiring".
but if you give a for profit entity money with NO strings attached they will do what's best for their owners first and foremost.
What are they going to do "shame" them into lending to small businesses after giving them hundreds of billions already?
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
what's the point. Are they going to force lenders to lend? I doubt it. Two things either lenders' balance sheets are still that screwed up or lenders are realizing, particularly the financial conglomerates, that they don't have to make loans to make money. Their proprietary trading programs will save them (helped by cheap money).
RebelCapitalist.com - Financial Information for the Rest of Us.
because he has said reinstate Glass-Stegall and some other very good juju.
Yeah, I know his history but honestly I think if Nixon were alive today he would be called a card carrying pinko socialist, environmentalist, flower power bleeding heart in comparison to some of the sanity going on.
I knew Volcker's history too so all of this surprised me but he's been forced out of power by team Larry "Rubin" Summers so that tells you he's obviously recommending better stuff for that to happen. ;)_
Please encourage common, probably our more information loaded commentor to write. ;)
Then I believe midtowng wrote up a blog post about how states will soon be downgraded and so on.
Yes, they also will not face any reality whatsoever on the costs of illegal immigration. I mean it's pretty ridiculous and impractical IMHO, with CA being one of the worst.
Then, they won't cut anything where a "special favor" is involved.
the whole thing is unsustainable. Thanks for the post, more should see this!
Unfortunately, the Feds will be limited in their ability to save Illinois and many, many other states from collapse. Not because the Feds are powerless per se, but because the Feds have wasted precious time and resources in support of the financial oligarchy, which has made the states' predicaments a fait accomplis. Listen to what John Mauldin has to say:
The lack of investment in the creation of private sector jobs will ultimately seal the fate of not only the states, but the federal government as well.
whatever it is you drink when you need one.
I began to question Bonddad when he began praising Paul Volcker. That's over a year ago, now, I believe. Anyone who remembers the 1980s and who wasn't part of the financial ruling class, or a toady for the financial oligrachy, remembers that Volcker's high interest rate squeeze on inflation wrecked half the U.S. industrial base, and laid the other half open to financial predators like Mike Ivan Boesky, Ron Perlman, Peter Peterson, Bill Simon, Kohlberg Kravis and Roberts, and the whole slew of "buyout" bandits. For anyone who believed that the real economy meant manufacturing and transportation, the 1980s were pure, unadulterated hell, and there can be no forgiving Paul Volcker for unleashing the dogs of usury.
But I remember when Bonddad was writing some great material focusing on the growth of debt as an indicator of a fake recovery, like you quote. The question is: what happened to him?
Well, he's a bond trader, as well as a lawyer, I believe. And I think it is the very, very rare person who can make a living in the financial markets, and still retain his or her soul intact. I think that as the financial crisis progressed from mid-2007 to its climax in Sept 2008, there were people like me who pumped out repeated jeremiads excoriating the financial markets as being net drains on the economy. I believe Bonddad reached a point where he realized that if those jeremiads were correct, than the way he made a living was morally unacceptable. One way out of the soul-wrenching realization would be to begin believing that the financial crisis was just a sort of massive correction, not an actual breakdown of the financial system that called for the radical transformation of that system.
These kinds of epic struggles that take place within one person is the stuff of great literature, and make great tragedies. Like Macbeth.
My major point was that the gloom-and-doomers and the green shooters were using entirely different methodology.
I can sort of see the Green Shooters point...as long as you take an entirely different economy and assume that everything is still the same.
Glad to see you comment. Can you change your account email address for your old one is dead city and I've lost the new one.
I whole heartily agree with this and glad to see Demand side econ spelled out more clearly. This is exactly the point, people need jobs, businesses need revenues, people need income to go out and buy things from other businesses.
I forgot also to mention the absurd tight credit to small business. They aren't doing much it appears on that front either.
Frankly some of this sounds like someone has household chores they never got around to, like home repair and thought somehow that would make a nice jobs program.
Unreal.
First, the administration is completely losing it's credibility with the populace. The latest Gallup poll shows Obama's approval rating is down to 47%.
And then there is the Chart of the Day.
Global trade with the US was down 9% in November.
Pages