A country like Iran at least has elections which maybe fraudulent and U.S. political establishment is outraged calling for all kinds of sanctions but a country like China which is not even close to being democratic and is pushing hard for more internet censorship get a pat on the back and most favored nation status. Oh no, don't upset China. China is Ruler of the World.
The Obama Administration seems content with baby steps on major issues such climate change, health care reform and financial regulation. These are very tough issues but the Administration has been absolutely reluctant to get dirty.
Washington seems to think that they can craft policy in a way that is "painless". Sorry, not possible. So, what we are seeing is nothing more than kicking the can down the line.
The problem is that these issues require major reforms now and any small changes may make the situations worse. Cap and trade is an example of that. They have created an incredibly complicated scheme that does very little to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions. It may, as you point out, cause major inefficiencies in the markets.
For what? So that you can say you have accomplished something. PleaZe! This is another example of policy not meeting the magnitude of the problem but in this case this baby step may make things worse.
to feel a bit uneasy with the economics of the current Administration? $900 billion will need to come from the economy to pay immediate costs. Where will that come from and who is getting it?
I doubt if Waxman knows what is in the Bill. I think it should be a law that these people MUST read a Bill before voting on it. Or aren't they already required to read it?
This makes me more convinced of a check/balance system of the regulators. That's just another example of two sets of rules...one for the Zombies and one for the rest.
The SEC selectively lowered net capital requirements for certain conglomerates:
Goldman, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Lehman and Bear Stearns, the only firms cleared by the SEC to adopt the new capital- adequacy standard
The new rule takes a more nuanced approach. Reserves are determined according to a combination of risks including losses from credit deterioration, adverse market movements, inadequate internal controls and changes in legislation. They permit securities firms to use non-cash assets, such as derivative contracts, to offset risk.
Get that, naunced - translation: "have at boys". The other fun thing that the SEC did was allow these conglomerates to police themselves by allowing them to use their own risk management systems to monitor things.
Maybe if we enforced are current regulations in a fair and even manner maybe we won't have the crisis we have. Indy Mac comes to mind. But that is too much to ask or expect.
We will be in this same predicament a few years from now (maybe sooner based on wave theory). What we need is some hard fast rules - don't leave anything up to the discretion of a regulator. "Thou shall not build a financial conglomerate that is deemed a systemic risk to the entire global financial economy."
By preserving "too big to fail" institutions we are only guaranteeing "socialized losses" in the future - just like the financial oligarchy likes it. All upside and no downside.
I had a dream last night that these packaged "assets" were just another large -- huge, that is -- bubble. Too big to imagine, let alone fail. They grew and grew, but were mostly invisible to regulators and politicians. Then some people with pitchforks came along. They threw their credit cards into a huge bonfire and added their credit card bills to the enormous blaze. They had decided to stop living on credit and go to cash. If it cost too much, they wouldn't buy it. If a bill collector called, they changed their phone numbers or used caller ID and answering machines to duck them. Then the pitchforks began to pierce the bubble. The result was that the off-balance-sheet liabilities were no longer invisible -- the banks began asking for more money from TARP, son of TARP, and the Fed. They said they could bring down the financial system. Then they themselves began to notice the pitchforks. But what the hell -- it was just a dream.
Rumor has it that they are sending all their customers notices that the minimum payment is being changed from 2% to 5% effective August or September. They are instantly going to force a lot more still-employed ppl into default who simply cannot make a payment that large. I haven't yet figured out what the end game is there - why would it be in their interest to force a lot of people to default very quickly - but clearly, there's something in it for them at the end. In and of themselves, charge-offs are not desirable.
Ilargi over at Automatic Earth has been harping on Goldman Sachs and their connections from the git go. Some of the diarists at Kos, ditto. Rolling Stone has a larger readership, so maybe more people will pay attention at this point, but unless it's published in People magazine or Oprah has a segment on it, I doubt there will be enough people who care to reach critical mass.
When commodity prices started to hit the ceiling, I suspected too much money was being invested for the spike to be caused by genuine shortages. Some local papers were covering oil tankers sitting off the coast while people were screaming about high gas prices, but due to the received wisdom about Peak Oil, these were ignored.
All the information one could need is out there. It's a matter of overcoming individual prejudice enough to pay attention.
Don't forget the Maiden Lane fiascoes. Fed is losing money daily on those assets it purchased in order to cancel CDS contracts.
This doesn't help Fed that much and may be a problem when they try to take the companies public with NY Fed still owning a portion of these companies. Why is AIG not being fully wind down? AIG is an absolute zombie that should be put out of its misery by a complete liquidation of its assets. NY Fed should force a liquidation and try to recoup some of its "investments" in AIG.
I should probably wait to think this through but WTH:
How about special retirement accounts that would hold people's purchased treasury securities and receive the coupon payments and those pymts would accrue some interest - similar to a savings account. Then upon withdrawal at certain retirement age all income is tax free.
Go ahead and give the TAship to the most qualified- but don't discriminate against the American because they were born here. They couldn't help being born here.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
I didn't know that and zero taxes on owning treasuries would be one hell of an incentive to buy them.
Also, I cannot find the specific article in FT and the link just goes to the website.
I don't know enough of the reasoning around why they would limit their auctions, increase the minimum to $1k, but I would imagine they need to keep the system very stable.
Nominees emerge but still no formal announcement and the clock is ticking.
A short list of names has emerged for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that includes former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson; former Democratic head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission Brooksley Born; and Alex Pollock, a fellow at the conservative think tank American Enterprise Institute, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Congress last month created the 10-member commission to study how fraud, regulatory lapses, monetary policy, accounting, lending practices and executive pay contributed to the worst U.S. financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Don't Upset China.
A country like Iran at least has elections which maybe fraudulent and U.S. political establishment is outraged calling for all kinds of sanctions but a country like China which is not even close to being democratic and is pushing hard for more internet censorship get a pat on the back and most favored nation status. Oh no, don't upset China. China is Ruler of the World.
Sorry, I digress.
The Obama Administration seems content with baby steps on major issues such climate change, health care reform and financial regulation. These are very tough issues but the Administration has been absolutely reluctant to get dirty.
Washington seems to think that they can craft policy in a way that is "painless". Sorry, not possible. So, what we are seeing is nothing more than kicking the can down the line.
The problem is that these issues require major reforms now and any small changes may make the situations worse. Cap and trade is an example of that. They have created an incredibly complicated scheme that does very little to achieve the goal of reducing carbon emissions. It may, as you point out, cause major inefficiencies in the markets.
For what? So that you can say you have accomplished something. PleaZe! This is another example of policy not meeting the magnitude of the problem but in this case this baby step may make things worse.
to feel a bit uneasy with the economics of the current Administration? $900 billion will need to come from the economy to pay immediate costs. Where will that come from and who is getting it?
I doubt if Waxman knows what is in the Bill. I think it should be a law that these people MUST read a Bill before voting on it. Or aren't they already required to read it?
This makes me more convinced of a check/balance system of the regulators. That's just another example of two sets of rules...one for the Zombies and one for the rest.
Wall Street Gets Lift From SEC That May Boost Profit
The SEC selectively lowered net capital requirements for certain conglomerates:
Get that, naunced - translation: "have at boys". The other fun thing that the SEC did was allow these conglomerates to police themselves by allowing them to use their own risk management systems to monitor things.
Maybe if we enforced are current regulations in a fair and even manner maybe we won't have the crisis we have. Indy Mac comes to mind. But that is too much to ask or expect.
We will be in this same predicament a few years from now (maybe sooner based on wave theory). What we need is some hard fast rules - don't leave anything up to the discretion of a regulator. "Thou shall not build a financial conglomerate that is deemed a systemic risk to the entire global financial economy."
By preserving "too big to fail" institutions we are only guaranteeing "socialized losses" in the future - just like the financial oligarchy likes it. All upside and no downside.
www.insideGoldmanSachs.blogspot.com
inside the head of a conspiracist
I had a dream last night that these packaged "assets" were just another large -- huge, that is -- bubble. Too big to imagine, let alone fail. They grew and grew, but were mostly invisible to regulators and politicians. Then some people with pitchforks came along. They threw their credit cards into a huge bonfire and added their credit card bills to the enormous blaze. They had decided to stop living on credit and go to cash. If it cost too much, they wouldn't buy it. If a bill collector called, they changed their phone numbers or used caller ID and answering machines to duck them. Then the pitchforks began to pierce the bubble. The result was that the off-balance-sheet liabilities were no longer invisible -- the banks began asking for more money from TARP, son of TARP, and the Fed. They said they could bring down the financial system. Then they themselves began to notice the pitchforks. But what the hell -- it was just a dream.
Rumor has it that they are sending all their customers notices that the minimum payment is being changed from 2% to 5% effective August or September. They are instantly going to force a lot more still-employed ppl into default who simply cannot make a payment that large. I haven't yet figured out what the end game is there - why would it be in their interest to force a lot of people to default very quickly - but clearly, there's something in it for them at the end. In and of themselves, charge-offs are not desirable.
Here it comes. Calif. IOUs loom as lawmakers remain at impasse.
They should rename the state slogan to be The FUBAR State.
and I cannot find it, a host of discrepancies on funds by the Fed to various companies on the bail out.
I think we answered the question of why AIG is not really being wound down and that's because of the payouts to other Zombie institutions through AIG.
Ilargi over at Automatic Earth has been harping on Goldman Sachs and their connections from the git go. Some of the diarists at Kos, ditto. Rolling Stone has a larger readership, so maybe more people will pay attention at this point, but unless it's published in People magazine or Oprah has a segment on it, I doubt there will be enough people who care to reach critical mass.
When commodity prices started to hit the ceiling, I suspected too much money was being invested for the spike to be caused by genuine shortages. Some local papers were covering oil tankers sitting off the coast while people were screaming about high gas prices, but due to the received wisdom about Peak Oil, these were ignored.
All the information one could need is out there. It's a matter of overcoming individual prejudice enough to pay attention.
Don't forget the Maiden Lane fiascoes. Fed is losing money daily on those assets it purchased in order to cancel CDS contracts.
This doesn't help Fed that much and may be a problem when they try to take the companies public with NY Fed still owning a portion of these companies. Why is AIG not being fully wind down? AIG is an absolute zombie that should be put out of its misery by a complete liquidation of its assets. NY Fed should force a liquidation and try to recoup some of its "investments" in AIG.
I should probably wait to think this through but WTH:
How about special retirement accounts that would hold people's purchased treasury securities and receive the coupon payments and those pymts would accrue some interest - similar to a savings account. Then upon withdrawal at certain retirement age all income is tax free.
to me is a very good idea. I'm wondering about the political implications. Is it whoever owns the debt controls the politics?
Do U.S. citizens need to buy their country back?
On the market, we need some T-bill experts here to comment, what about market stability, no speculation, etc.?
Go ahead and give the TAship to the most qualified- but don't discriminate against the American because they were born here. They couldn't help being born here.
-------------------------------------
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.
from U.S. standpoint. Now, I don't know about the home countries tax schemes but in terms of US - zilch. In the case, of China definitely not.
I am trying to find the article - I read it in the print edition months ago. I am trying to find the article on online.
The auctions wouldn't have to change - the proposal addresses increasing the retail market of Treasuries.
I didn't know that and zero taxes on owning treasuries would be one hell of an incentive to buy them.
Also, I cannot find the specific article in FT and the link just goes to the website.
I don't know enough of the reasoning around why they would limit their auctions, increase the minimum to $1k, but I would imagine they need to keep the system very stable.
I changed to a gmail account manfromiddletown@gmail.com.
I didn't check my Lycos for about a month and it shut down.
Nominees emerge but still no formal announcement and the clock is ticking.
Pages