But I say disallow the bonuses and let them sue. Maybe, a judicial proceeding can shed some light on any potential fraud or other shenanigans that these employees may have committed.
I don't think it would be unconstitutional. Federal government has broad authority to levy taxes.
I put in an Instapopulist the Federal Reserve's release of AIG's payout disclosures.
Maybe I didn't amplify it enough but the link to the document is in the above.
Now this is good because it appears the Fed is responding to earlier demands from Congress on transparency, considering just how much of this is public money...
but it's also shocking at how these CDSes are the real toxic assets and payouts.
I'm sorry but where is the mathematical validity that one can issue unlimited credit default swaps on one underlying asset? Then take derivatives of those credit default swaps and trade those too?
Here's a cess pool I think us Populists need to dive into more. That is the ISDA or lobbyist organization for international swaps and derivatives association, as well as any plans or intentions to get a regulatory agency around all of these structured financial "products".
I believe we plain need to kill the shadow banking system and they also need oversight on good old fashioned financial mathematical models. Yes it's tough, but if it doesn't make sense to a good 10 mathematics PhDs....odds are it plain doesn't make sense period.
I especially like the idea of not using taxpayer money to offshore outsource or insource (bring in foreign worker replacements via guest worker Visas) as a fundamental principle.
Citigroup signed a $2 billion dollar offshore outsourcing contract after receiving TARP funds. JP Morgan Chase just increased outsourcing to India by 25%.
AIG on the technical end, is already notoriously offshore outsourced.
What is it you do not like specifically on DeFazio's transaction fees on trades? I believe he is pulling up an old transaction fee which was eliminated, used to fund regulatory agencies and so on.
Sure trades will cost more but hey man, if they can stick on $1.50 fees on unemployment compensation ATM funds, surely a sliding scale of some sort could be created to generate revenues from trades.
As far as AIG goes, I don't care what's "legal" or "contractually binding"....they basically are trying to claim "global economic collapse" if the government won't give them butt loads of money and do whatever they want.
They are trying to hold the world hostage. That's how I see it at this point. Time for Teddy Roosevelt and his big stick and letting AIG know right now who is king dog in America and that still is the government, not their ratty asses!
(I'm really sick of this entire systemic global collapse..
clearly no company should EVER be allowed to get so big, or create such fictional investment vehicles they can literally threaten contagion on such a scale!)
My response is "FU". AIG, you brought down a global economy with your fictional structured finance and you will pay. I think they need to take out that executive management right now, nationalize the damn thing, sell off the many very solid divisions (with that management intact) and get those fictional structured financial vehicles wound down, stopped, no more new issuances, maybe in some open public auction..I don't know but they need to call cash on AIG and plain rein them in!
Ya know there are surely people around in the FDIC and so on who can replace those executives....seriously, how could anyone even off the street do worse than these glorified crooks? @&*)$@&*)
Any company negative, well, rightly it should be out of business and the C-level executives in jail for fraud or worse.
Any company with a price-to-asset ratio of less than one, is undervalued.
Any company with a price-to-asset ratio of greater than one is overvalued.
Anything else, to me, is irrational and a sign that the market is not only stupid, but dangerously insane.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I'm so glad to see housing prices analyzed by the median income too. I think it is also most useful you mentioned at some point to avoid massive inflation, the Fed will have to raise interest rates as well as reduce the money supply.
I have another area that probably needs some government reform and that is credit scores.
It's like a hidden big brother the way these companies are scoring people and if they continue to make it more difficult for people to buy a home, to get out of their debt, I imagine the ability to get credit is going to be an additional factor.
i.e. that 20% down is going to 25% interest rates instead and the ability of these companies to just magically change someone's credit score in addition to these credit card companies charging loan shark rates is another consumer 'bleed 'em'.
BTW: the glut it's just pathetic, we have various corporate lobbyists and their puppets claiming that we should bring in more temporary guest workers, as if a temporary guest worker is going to buy a home and they also ignore how U.S. citizens are losing their jobs by this method, i.e. it's a direct replacement of labor so it represses income per that occupational area plus the U.S. citizen displaces....will probably lose their home. In other words, it's worker substitution...
not exactly growing the population who have stable income and can commit to a 30 year mortgage.
Believe this or not, Mr. huge cause of this debacle, Alan Greenspan is spewing this absurdity as policy.
I did some contract work for a large financial services firm. The line managers of that firm were REQUIRED to staff at least 35% of their positions with H-1B consultants. One of the things that came to mind was that the firm, may be even the top managers, had large investments in the Indian companies.
The financial services firm has since been taken over and it irritates me that tax payer money is being used by the firm to hire/retain H-1B consultants.
Secondly, calling out the statistics of a particular country, namely India, is fine....
what is not fine is name calling and stereotyping.
You are also missing the obvious. There are many Americans who are of Indian ethnicity who are also getting the careers cut short, economically decimated and labor arbitraged.
Americans are being labor arbitraged and that is women who seemingly are first up on the labor arbitrage chopping block, older workers and yes people who are of Indian ethnicity.
So, if you want to talk about India targeting the I.T. sector and how they go about doing that is fine. One can point to China doing very similar things with manufacturing and they did create a tariff schedule that would guarantee they would capture certain sectors...
but to name call or move into ethnic focuses on an economics site....not ok. Just because other blogs are filled with this sort of thing and yes I am completely aware of some of the outrageous posts by Indians...doesn't mean we're going there or any of it flies here.
this is also simply not statistically accurate, to focus on ethnicity....as I point out, many U.S. citizens of various ethnicities are getting labor arbitraged so one must focus on which country, national loyalty.
It's like assuming an American of Irish descent magically supported the IRA in the 1980's. Obviously false as a general rule.
I am not advocating "protectionism". Frankly, I am not sure what am advocating right now. But I know this: globalization has not been the "win-win" that "free trade" proponents have argued.
I agree with John Ratzenberger on this, there ain't nothing wrong with being protectionist. In fact, protectionism is the only rational way to be- protect my children first- because only then can I protect my neighbor's children. Protect my job first, then protect my neighbor's job.
Subsidarity is the key to true morality- do everything at the lowest possible level with the least complexity. Sure, you can gain economies of scale by going larger- but you do so ONLY at the cost of your neighbor, and thus, yourself.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
The Indian Bodyshoppers wouldn't be here if we didn't have an "every man for himself" attitude among C-class executives in the United States.
The real danger is centralization of wealth INTERNAL to the United States, that encourages these stupid decisions. Too many Lee Iacoccas, not enough Henry Fords.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
First stabilize the patient, then cure him. I just hope we don't stop with the stabilization. You're absolutely right we need to reduce debt- in fact, I'm one of the few who believe we need to redesign the system around creation of wealth instead of creation of debt. But you can't get there without *first* keeping people alive. You don't want to be pumping donated blood into the patient forever, but you do need to have a pint or two to start the operation.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
We are at war here, dealing with a corrupt H[indu]-1B that is trying to eliminate all Americans from the I.T. industry
I agree, to a large extent, but I think you've got the wrong enemy. The true enemy is the person I call a free traitor:
American I.T. managers that hire H-1Bs are spineless, and most know that there is no value-add with an illiterate H-1B sent in by a bloodsucking Desi bodyshop. But since most CIOs, CTOs, and V.P.s in corporate I.T. are failed developers, that is how they like it.
These are our real enemies- we're in a civil war, not an international one.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
New home sales will HAVE to hit zero. The leading indicator for me is foreclosure sales in shrinking population markets like Detroit. IF one can live anywhere (and arguably, in a post-industrial job, one can- it's not THAT hard to telecomute), why would anybody buy a McMansion for $1 million in California, when they could have the EXACT SAME HOUSE for $10,000 in Detroit?
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Mr. Oaks, I see you are walking the "identity politics", PC line. This issue is a targeted attempt by a foreign government to manipulate a labor market and associated manufacturing goods (software creation and maintenance, hardware distribution). That government and country has a name. That culture has a character and it plays out in the workplace. The PC and identity politics we have been fooled into holding so dear allows a distinct anti-American, anti-diversity workplace culture and hiring practice to take root in many if not most corporate (and as we have seen government) IT departments responsible for hiring and acquiring goods and services. Populism can get messy. In this case there is a clear country, class and culture which is responsible for so much American middle class angst. Why are we not allowed to call a spade a spade in America? Why are we not able to point out the web of national origin, ethnicity and class cronyism?
And why are there not Latvians, Serbs, Thais and Irish you read about in this context. It is because you cannot separate the corruption and cronyism of the gamed labor immigration system from a distinct nationality who uses sheer numbers to flood our labor market and who uses identity politics gotcha tactics and minority business owner laws to cheat non-immigrants American out of a middle class wage. If you live this (trying to make a decent living or even get a job with an IT background) you would know - it is not about a funny punch line from South Park, it is a very stressful, anger-invoking situation.
They don't want to nationalize so they have to figure a way to possibly make some financial conglomerates appear salvageable.
This delay means that their will be a group of people, hopefully not too large, that will have access to some very critical information for an extended period of time that will absolutely crucial to the stock market. Not a good situation.
I was thinking more in terms of what happens in the Keynesian economic model when one uses U.S. tax payer dollars to create jobs in India or bring in workers from India instead of U.S. citizens....what happens with foreign companies, or U.S. companies who offshore outsource jobs...
like IBM get billions...
What happens in Keynesian modeling with these current realities? I don't actually have an answer I looked over some of the mathematics and see a huge problem with the above things I just mentioned but not aware of other modeling to take into account all of the effects. I went off of the basic Keynesian equation.
I think all of us on EP have mentioned, hmmm, just when does the US plain take on too much debt and we risk default but none of us have written a detailed blog post with projections, graphs and so on to date. Nor have I seen one really with that level of analysis.
But I say disallow the bonuses and let them sue. Maybe, a judicial proceeding can shed some light on any potential fraud or other shenanigans that these employees may have committed.
I don't think it would be unconstitutional. Federal government has broad authority to levy taxes.
I put in an Instapopulist the Federal Reserve's release of AIG's payout disclosures.
Maybe I didn't amplify it enough but the link to the document is in the above.
Now this is good because it appears the Fed is responding to earlier demands from Congress on transparency, considering just how much of this is public money...
but it's also shocking at how these CDSes are the real toxic assets and payouts.
I'm sorry but where is the mathematical validity that one can issue unlimited credit default swaps on one underlying asset? Then take derivatives of those credit default swaps and trade those too?
Here's a cess pool I think us Populists need to dive into more. That is the ISDA or lobbyist organization for international swaps and derivatives association, as well as any plans or intentions to get a regulatory agency around all of these structured financial "products".
I believe we plain need to kill the shadow banking system and they also need oversight on good old fashioned financial mathematical models. Yes it's tough, but if it doesn't make sense to a good 10 mathematics PhDs....odds are it plain doesn't make sense period.
I especially like the idea of not using taxpayer money to offshore outsource or insource (bring in foreign worker replacements via guest worker Visas) as a fundamental principle.
Citigroup signed a $2 billion dollar offshore outsourcing contract after receiving TARP funds. JP Morgan Chase just increased outsourcing to India by 25%.
AIG on the technical end, is already notoriously offshore outsourced.
What is it you do not like specifically on DeFazio's transaction fees on trades? I believe he is pulling up an old transaction fee which was eliminated, used to fund regulatory agencies and so on.
Sure trades will cost more but hey man, if they can stick on $1.50 fees on unemployment compensation ATM funds, surely a sliding scale of some sort could be created to generate revenues from trades.
As far as AIG goes, I don't care what's "legal" or "contractually binding"....they basically are trying to claim "global economic collapse" if the government won't give them butt loads of money and do whatever they want.
They are trying to hold the world hostage. That's how I see it at this point. Time for Teddy Roosevelt and his big stick and letting AIG know right now who is king dog in America and that still is the government, not their ratty asses!
(I'm really sick of this entire systemic global collapse..
clearly no company should EVER be allowed to get so big, or create such fictional investment vehicles they can literally threaten contagion on such a scale!)
My response is "FU". AIG, you brought down a global economy with your fictional structured finance and you will pay. I think they need to take out that executive management right now, nationalize the damn thing, sell off the many very solid divisions (with that management intact) and get those fictional structured financial vehicles wound down, stopped, no more new issuances, maybe in some open public auction..I don't know but they need to call cash on AIG and plain rein them in!
Ya know there are surely people around in the FDIC and so on who can replace those executives....seriously, how could anyone even off the street do worse than these glorified crooks? @&*)$@&*)
Is assets-liabilities.
Anything beyond that is just wishful thinking.
Any company negative, well, rightly it should be out of business and the C-level executives in jail for fraud or worse.
Any company with a price-to-asset ratio of less than one, is undervalued.
Any company with a price-to-asset ratio of greater than one is overvalued.
Anything else, to me, is irrational and a sign that the market is not only stupid, but dangerously insane.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I'm so glad to see housing prices analyzed by the median income too. I think it is also most useful you mentioned at some point to avoid massive inflation, the Fed will have to raise interest rates as well as reduce the money supply.
I have another area that probably needs some government reform and that is credit scores.
It's like a hidden big brother the way these companies are scoring people and if they continue to make it more difficult for people to buy a home, to get out of their debt, I imagine the ability to get credit is going to be an additional factor.
i.e. that 20% down is going to 25% interest rates instead and the ability of these companies to just magically change someone's credit score in addition to these credit card companies charging loan shark rates is another consumer 'bleed 'em'.
BTW: the glut it's just pathetic, we have various corporate lobbyists and their puppets claiming that we should bring in more temporary guest workers, as if a temporary guest worker is going to buy a home and they also ignore how U.S. citizens are losing their jobs by this method, i.e. it's a direct replacement of labor so it represses income per that occupational area plus the U.S. citizen displaces....will probably lose their home. In other words, it's worker substitution...
not exactly growing the population who have stable income and can commit to a 30 year mortgage.
Believe this or not, Mr. huge cause of this debacle, Alan Greenspan is spewing this absurdity as policy.
I did some contract work for a large financial services firm. The line managers of that firm were REQUIRED to staff at least 35% of their positions with H-1B consultants. One of the things that came to mind was that the firm, may be even the top managers, had large investments in the Indian companies.
The financial services firm has since been taken over and it irritates me that tax payer money is being used by the firm to hire/retain H-1B consultants.
what AIG is doing have nothing to do with mathematics....
in fact they are exposed for abusing mathematics to sell their absurd Ponzi scheme CDSes.
firstly, create an account.
Secondly, calling out the statistics of a particular country, namely India, is fine....
what is not fine is name calling and stereotyping.
You are also missing the obvious. There are many Americans who are of Indian ethnicity who are also getting the careers cut short, economically decimated and labor arbitraged.
Americans are being labor arbitraged and that is women who seemingly are first up on the labor arbitrage chopping block, older workers and yes people who are of Indian ethnicity.
So, if you want to talk about India targeting the I.T. sector and how they go about doing that is fine. One can point to China doing very similar things with manufacturing and they did create a tariff schedule that would guarantee they would capture certain sectors...
but to name call or move into ethnic focuses on an economics site....not ok. Just because other blogs are filled with this sort of thing and yes I am completely aware of some of the outrageous posts by Indians...doesn't mean we're going there or any of it flies here.
this is also simply not statistically accurate, to focus on ethnicity....as I point out, many U.S. citizens of various ethnicities are getting labor arbitraged so one must focus on which country, national loyalty.
It's like assuming an American of Irish descent magically supported the IRA in the 1980's. Obviously false as a general rule.
Is just math without humanity. AIG is doing no different than the math dictates.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I agree with John Ratzenberger on this, there ain't nothing wrong with being protectionist. In fact, protectionism is the only rational way to be- protect my children first- because only then can I protect my neighbor's children. Protect my job first, then protect my neighbor's job.
Subsidarity is the key to true morality- do everything at the lowest possible level with the least complexity. Sure, you can gain economies of scale by going larger- but you do so ONLY at the cost of your neighbor, and thus, yourself.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
But I agree in this case, and here's why:
The Indian Bodyshoppers wouldn't be here if we didn't have an "every man for himself" attitude among C-class executives in the United States.
The real danger is centralization of wealth INTERNAL to the United States, that encourages these stupid decisions. Too many Lee Iacoccas, not enough Henry Fords.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
First stabilize the patient, then cure him. I just hope we don't stop with the stabilization. You're absolutely right we need to reduce debt- in fact, I'm one of the few who believe we need to redesign the system around creation of wealth instead of creation of debt. But you can't get there without *first* keeping people alive. You don't want to be pumping donated blood into the patient forever, but you do need to have a pint or two to start the operation.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
I agree, to a large extent, but I think you've got the wrong enemy. The true enemy is the person I call a free traitor:
These are our real enemies- we're in a civil war, not an international one.
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
UAW was forced to renegotiate its contracts for bailout money. AIG executives skate.
Maybe all employment contracts need to be renegotiated if they have TARP or any other taxpayer money.
New home sales will HAVE to hit zero. The leading indicator for me is foreclosure sales in shrinking population markets like Detroit. IF one can live anywhere (and arguably, in a post-industrial job, one can- it's not THAT hard to telecomute), why would anybody buy a McMansion for $1 million in California, when they could have the EXACT SAME HOUSE for $10,000 in Detroit?
-------------------------------------
Moral hazards would not exist in a system designed to eliminate fraud.
Mr. Oaks, I see you are walking the "identity politics", PC line. This issue is a targeted attempt by a foreign government to manipulate a labor market and associated manufacturing goods (software creation and maintenance, hardware distribution). That government and country has a name. That culture has a character and it plays out in the workplace. The PC and identity politics we have been fooled into holding so dear allows a distinct anti-American, anti-diversity workplace culture and hiring practice to take root in many if not most corporate (and as we have seen government) IT departments responsible for hiring and acquiring goods and services. Populism can get messy. In this case there is a clear country, class and culture which is responsible for so much American middle class angst. Why are we not allowed to call a spade a spade in America? Why are we not able to point out the web of national origin, ethnicity and class cronyism?
And why are there not Latvians, Serbs, Thais and Irish you read about in this context. It is because you cannot separate the corruption and cronyism of the gamed labor immigration system from a distinct nationality who uses sheer numbers to flood our labor market and who uses identity politics gotcha tactics and minority business owner laws to cheat non-immigrants American out of a middle class wage. If you live this (trying to make a decent living or even get a job with an IT background) you would know - it is not about a funny punch line from South Park, it is a very stressful, anger-invoking situation.
They don't want to nationalize so they have to figure a way to possibly make some financial conglomerates appear salvageable.
This delay means that their will be a group of people, hopefully not too large, that will have access to some very critical information for an extended period of time that will absolutely crucial to the stock market. Not a good situation.
I was thinking more in terms of what happens in the Keynesian economic model when one uses U.S. tax payer dollars to create jobs in India or bring in workers from India instead of U.S. citizens....what happens with foreign companies, or U.S. companies who offshore outsource jobs...
like IBM get billions...
What happens in Keynesian modeling with these current realities? I don't actually have an answer I looked over some of the mathematics and see a huge problem with the above things I just mentioned but not aware of other modeling to take into account all of the effects. I went off of the basic Keynesian equation.
I think all of us on EP have mentioned, hmmm, just when does the US plain take on too much debt and we risk default but none of us have written a detailed blog post with projections, graphs and so on to date. Nor have I seen one really with that level of analysis.
I was just kidding aside, maybe the video is beside the DVD, "Obama does something instead of just talking".
Removed
Pages