Why does Barry Rithholtz hate Obama?

Over at correntewire.com, lambert relates Barry Ritholtz's latest rant:

So far, the Obama administration approach to bailouts has been to keep running Bush Economic term III. They have been far too kind (genteel even) showering taxpayer monies on the incompetents and fools who drove their firms over the abyss. Indeed, it's all but impossible to see where the largesse of the Bush bailout policies ends and the Obama bailout policies begins.

If today were November 2012, I would not vote for this team. As far as the banking sector is concerned, this gang is no different than the knaves and dolts who came before. It is more of the same irresponsible, expensive and reckless policy that preceded them.

That anyone is even debating pulling Derivatives out of the shadow banking system and putting them into a regulated derivatives exchange — transparent, reserved for, counter-party guaranteed, exchange supervised – is embarrassing for our nation, its corporate and political leaders.

But even better is the quote from John Hussman:

[T]he debate about the long-term economic fallout from this defense of bank bondholders is anything but academic. I recognize that I have been on a virtual rant about it in recent months, but the reason is that it is literally the most important fiscal and bureaucratic event that we are likely to observe in our lifetimes, and is very possibly the precursor to enormous future economic difficulties. You simply cannot have an economy lend out trillions of dollars in bad debt, and then make the lenders whole with public funds (while still facing a massive second wave of probable mortgage defaults) without destructive repercussions. There is very little chance, in my view, that the current downturn is over. We have enjoyed a nice reprieve – if over a trillion dollars in redistribution could not accomplish even a reprieve, it would be a surprise. It's clear that investors are hopeful that we can simply return to rich valuations, debt-financed economic expansion, and abnormal profit margins based on excessive leverage. From my perspective, this hope is as thin as those that we observed at the peak of the internet bubble, the housing bubble, and the profit margin peak of 2007.



Subject Meta: 

Forum Categories: 

Barry Ritzholtz hates bad economics and policy

that is my guess. Hey, we're about looking at the details, the statistics, the policy and the effects....so, ya know, someone can be a nice guy, Charismatic, etc. and still have rotten policy or economics that are going to harm the long term growth of a sector or nation.

Either that or he is having a bad hair day.

This NYT article is worth the read:

Back to Business - Banks Dig In for Fight Against Rules

Hotly contested legislative wars are traditional fare in Washington, of course, and bills are often shaped by the push and pull of lobbyists — representing a cornucopia of special interests — working with politicians and government agencies.

What makes this fight different, say Wall Street critics and legislative leaders, is that financiers are aggressively seeking to fend off regulation of the very products and practices that directly contributed to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. In contrast, after the savings-and-loan debacle of the 1980s, the clout of the financial lobby diminished significantly.

The current battle mirrors a tug-of-war a decade ago. Arguing that regulation would hamper financial innovation and send American jobs overseas, Congress passed legislation in December 2000 exempting derivatives from most oversight. It was signed by President Bill Clinton.

The law passed despite the strenuous objections of Brooksley Born, a former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, who left the government after her unsuccessful effort to impose more regulation. In a recent speech, Ms. Born said big banks are again trying to water down oversight efforts.

“Special interests in the financial-services industry are beginning to advocate a return to business as usual and to argue against any need for serious reform,” Ms. Born, now a lawyer in private practice, said at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, where she received a Profile in Courage Award.

Fighting to preserve the status quo.

Are hedge funds feeling the power

the financial oligarchy? Link

Large dealers in the $26 trillion credit default swap market are blocking CME Group's (CME.N) efforts to clear the trades in a bid to retain their "oligopoly" over the market, hedge fund BlueMountain Capital Management said on Monday.

Profit motives and interests of the financial conglomerates/oligarchy are in direct conflict with our interests. Transparency means that less profit opportunities for these financial conglomerates.

Wait a minute! Attention Justice Department:

This sounds a lot like collusion. Are the financial conglomerates directly violating anti-trust laws?

They would be

If the anti-trust laws were still enforced. The last time I can remember them *actually* being anything other than a slap on the wrist was the AT&T breakup.

I would love to see the banks, not nationalized, but states enabled to compete with them, like Bank of North Dakota.
Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.

Maximum jobs, not maximum profits.

I remember this!

I was in a tangle against someone else a couple months back on this very same issue. Someone came on here to defend ICE's apparantly monopoly on CDS clearing. The problem is, you have no real competition. At least the CME is honest in saying they want to create a true regulated cleared market for new swaps. Their plan was to go totally electronic so that everyone sees what everyone else sees, and to expand the dealer beyond the limited number ICE uses.