25
Sep 08

Sh!t, I’d like to introduce you to Fan…

Where to begin? For starters, Dear Leader provides proof positive of exactly how bad things are, reiterating that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself. The comments are not very Presidential and are sure to shake the confidence of both the American people, institutions, and our global partners.

YouTube Preview Image

Bush’s dire words will have consequences. For starters, there’s this little bit of great news from China [Reuters] followed by a swift reversal/denial [also Reuters]:

Chinese regulators have told domestic banks to stop interbank lending to U.S. financial institutions to prevent possible losses during the financial crisis, the South China Morning Post reported on Thursday.

The Hong Kong newspaper cited unidentified industry sources as saying the instruction from the China Banking Regulatory Commission (CBRC) applied to interbank lending of all currencies to U.S. banks but not to banks from other countries.

“The decree appears to be Beijing’s first attempt to erect defences against the deepening U.S. financial meltdown after the mainland’s major lenders reported billions of U.S. dollars in exposure to the credit crisis,  the SCMP said.

A spokesman for the CBRC had no immediate comment.

Preliminary indications are that neither Congress, a healthy number of economists, and the American people are not falling for cheap parlor tricks.

The nation’s chief bookkeeper from the Congressional Budget Office suggests that the intervention may actually make things worse [WaPo]:

During testimony before the House Budget Committee, Peter R. Orszag ” Congress’s top bookkeeper ” said the bailout could expose the way companies are stowing toxic assets on their books, leading to greater problems.

“Ironically, the intervention could even trigger additional failures of large institutions, because some institutions may be carrying troubled assets on their books at inflated values,  Orszag said in his testimony. “Establishing clearer prices might reveal those institutions to be insolvent. 

In an interview later yesterday, Orszag explained using the following example: Suppose a company has Asset X, whose value is recorded on the books as $100. Because of the current economic decline, Asset X’s real value has dropped to $50. If the company takes part in the government bailout and sells Asset X for $50, the company has to report a $50 loss on its books. On a scale of millions of dollars, such write-downs could ruin a company.

Such companies “look solvent today only because it’s kind of hidden,  Orszag said. “They actually are insolvent  already, he said.

It doesn’t help any that Paulson and Bernanke view this crisis as a liquidity event and not a solvency event. They appear to believe that additional capital will dissolve the solvency problem. The fact that the amount $700,000,000,000 was just pulled from the air does not lend much confidence either.

The crisis is not just limited to investment brokerages and their exotic financial instruments. Your local retail bank may be in trouble too, and the FDIC is still undercapitalized as to insurance [Bloomberg]

It won’t take many more failures before the FDIC itself runs out of money. The agency had $45.2 billion in its coffers as of June 30, far short of the $200 billion Whalen says it will need to pay claims by the end of next year. The U.S. Treasury will almost certainly come to the rescue.

[...]

Emergency federal funding of the FDIC could swell the cost of government rescues of failed financial institutions to more than $400 billion — not including the $700 billion general Wall Street bailout now under discussion in Congress.

That number would be even higher if the government were on the hook for uninsured deposits — which amount to $2.6 trillion, 37 percent of the total of $7 trillion held in the U.S. branches of all FDIC member banks.

Currently 117 banks are on the “bad bank list”. 12 have failed this year alone; 2008 was the worst year for bank failures since the Savings & Loan Scandal in the 1990s.

By the end of 2009, about 100 U.S. banks with collective assets of more than $800 billion will fail, predicts Christopher Whalen, managing director of Institutional Risk Analytics, a Torrance, California-based firm that sells its analysis of FDIC data to investors.

“It’s not going to be Armageddon,” says Mark Vaughan, an economist and assistant vice president for banking supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, Virginia. “But it’s going to be bad.”


09
May 08

Things you can’t tell me…

You can’t tell me that St. BBQ, the maverick of campaign finance reform, doesn’t know explicitly how to game the rules that he helped author.

You can’t tell me that Bernake’s academic focus of research on the Great Depression wasn’t a factor in his selection as leader of the Fed.

You can’t tell me that the decision to stop reporting M3 is not at all reflective of the need to inflate us out of our current financial dilemma.

You can’t tell me that no one could have foretold the current economic crisis while the debate regarding bankruptcy reform was going on in Congress in 2005.

You can’t tell me that Obama is the more elitist candidate when your candidate is Ivy League educated, the wife of an ex-President, and is worth over a $100 million dollars (and able to drop millions in loans on her campaign).

You can’t tell me that the Obama campaign has been all about race when every other Clinton press release is about how well she does with Latinos and white people.


06
May 08

Office of Special Counsel Visited by the FBI?

My oh my! Which one of the many things might they be looking for?

Destruction of evidence? Peripheral information related to violations of the Hatch Act? Or possibly related to the December 7th “date of infamy” for the eight fired US Attorneys? Or something related to intolerant US Attorney Rachel Paulrose? Jeb Bush associates and Katrina pumps in New Orleans? Or possibly Bloch’s own ethical lapses? Or Bloch’s investigation into Karl Rove’s politicization of everything?

The mind reels at the possibilities!


06
May 08

Not So Sure About That, Krugman.

Krugman says:

[The] gas tax holiday is not, in my view, a good idea. But the furor over what is, when all is said and done, a small and temporary policy proposal is entirely disproportionate. What’s going on?

[...]

[E]conomists talk much more about trade than they do about health care policy, because they think they know something about it in a way the laity don’t.

The gas tax holiday is in this category. Economists really do know something about tax incidence that the laity don’t. So when a presidential candidate says something that conflicts with economistic wisdom, it becomes THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE EVER. Except, you know, it isn’t.

Krugman framed (and I selectively quoted around) this in terms of a partisan argument. Opposition to the gas tax isn’t based on whether one wants Obama, Hillary, or McCain to win, but rather on the merits of the proposal.

Krugman’s view of the gas tax holiday being a “small and temporary policy proposal” runs counter to our experience with energy policy.   Krugman should see that this is blatant pandering to an admittedly struggling middle class (of which I am one), a cheap ploy and politicization of both fiscal and energy policy with uncertain long-term consequences (prices, highway funds, etc.) for short term electoral gains.

The likely outcome will be increasing demand, shrinking supply, and rising prices, with a cumulative negative effect right
being felt right around the election (assuming a couple month lag between the reinstatement of taxes and the economic effects being felt).

Never mind the fact that neither of the proponents have been elected President yet, and Congress isn’t in session – so I’m not quite sure how they would enact this. Similarly, talk of a windfall profit tax on the oil companies has about ZERO chance of passing through Congress, and less of that making it past the President’s desk. Its easy to float things like that when there’s no chance of it happening.

Lastly, Suzie – I read you everyday, I know you are a Hillary supporter, and I know that informs your support of the gas tax holiday. Yes, $30 is a not-inconsequential amount of money to those at financial risk, but how likely is it that prices could rise in-excess of that? How likely would they rise beyond that point once the taxes are reinstated? I know ranting about who is bitter and who is elitist may bring some comfort to the class warriors, but dumbing down policy discussions and the anti-intellectualism of the right and ‘average Americans’ is partly responsible for the Bush years – as Einstein said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we
created them.”


04
May 08

Ahem.

I told you so – the economists are too elite.   The only supporter for her gas tax holiday plan (also pitched by Republican John McCain) she could find – Steve Elmendorf – is an Oil Co. lobbyist.