Sky Dancing

a place to discuss real issues

  • Oh, Brother …

    This has to rate up there with one of the biggest displays of ignorance by a pundit/journalist I’ve read in some time. Of course, it happened on Faux News, and of course, its bias shows their bias in general. It’s a biggie from Brent Hume about Tiger Woods’ serial infidelity. I guess if Hume was a Republican office holder he might have a special insider view on serial infidelity, but instead he said something that is so laughable that I have to wonder if he’s every really looked at any other religions.

    I grabbed this off of “the raw story” which oddly just listed a bunch of celebrity Buddhists as some kind of justification for Tiger’s Buddhism.

    Buddhism is inferior to Christianity when it comes to forgiveness of sins, according to Fox News pundit Brit Hume. Tiger Woods should turn his back on Buddhism and become a Christian to be forgiven for cheating on his wife, Hume told Fox News’ Chris Wallace Sunday.

    “The extent to which he can recover seems to me depends on his faith,” said Hume. “He is said to be a Buddhist. I don’t think that faith offers the kind of redemption and forgiveness offered by the Christian faith. My message to Tiger is, ‘Tiger turn to the Christian faith and you can make a total recovery and be a great example to the world.”

    Okay, so now you can watch it yourself.

    I want to talk to you about the complete strangeness of this response in terms of what Buddhists believe. I’ve been a Buddhist for some time . I’m a vajrayana buddhist from a Sherpa Nyingma Lineage. That’s the oldest of the Tibetan/Himalyan sects. It’s not the one the Dali Lama leads. His sect is Gelupka. I actually share lineages with Steven Seagal through his guru Dilgo Khyence Rinpoche but that’s another story.

    So here’s exactly how wrong it is in Buddhist terms, let alone ‘political correctness’ or polite society terms. First, there is no creator God in Buddhism so there is nothing to sin against. Sin isn’t really a relevant concept in Buddhism. If you commit a negative action you don’t insult any invisible being, you create karma which comes back at you like a tsunami. Karma is the result of the effect you caused by the action.

    You can of course see that Karma is already hitting Tiger squarely in the billfold and just about every place else, including the break up of his marriage and family. Adultery in Buddhism is considered sexual misconduct and comes under the idea that you’re undertaking a harmful behavior. It creates bad karma for you and it hurts others. Hurting any sentient being is considered the number one bad action of any Buddhist. There are, of course, levels of bad actions, and, of course levels, it follows from that differing levels of karma created by those actions. Karma (again, it’s simply a word the means the effects from your actions, thoughts or speech) can be good, bad, or neutral as a result of an action, thought, or spoken word that is either good, bad or neutral.

    In Buddhism, you basically reap what you sow. As a matter of fact that saying and all the other Jesus parables were taught by one Buddha–the one you known as Gautama–who was born in Nepal about 2500 years ago. His teachings were written down in the Sutras shortly after his death by his students and are considered to have made it to Rome when Constantine ordered the locked up local priesthoods to come up with one religion that would be known as the Roman religion. They obviously lifted a lot from Buddhism as well as the other prevailing beliefs at the time.

    Forgiveness of sins, to a Buddhist, is basically considered absurd on many levels. First off, you’re asking for something from something external which is dualistic thinking which is considered the root of all ignorance and suffering. So merely by begging for something from something outside of you creates more suffering.  Also, you’re asking for something from something that doesn’t exist.

    Your actions were against yourself and the folks around broke vows and promises that you have made and created really really bad karma. As part of the karmic chain, the only folks involved are the folks involved; not some imaginary being in an imaginary plane of existence. It’s like saying I dropped a glass and spilled something so I’ll just go ask the Queen of England for a pardon. What’s the Queen got to do with my mistake? She’s a party to nothing. That’s even given the Queen exists and a Buddhist doesn’t believe “God” exists.

    Anyway, what I really wanted to talk about is the fact that Brett Hume can’t even seem to grok how absurd the statement is because he’s so swimming in the concepts of sin and the need for forgiveness that he can’t imagine what it means to some one who believes that neither exists. He can’t see outside of his own paradigm. (Gosh, I hate that stupid word, but it works here.) He’s thinks that’s important for Tiger because it’s important to Brett.

    This is the problem with most folks and with religious discussions. My favorite one is that you’ll go to hell if you don’t believe (fill in the blank). Well, believe me, that threat may sound horrible to some one who seriously believes all that, but to some one who doesn’t it’s like saying Santa isn’t going to bring you presents under your tree. I think frequently when an atheist is accused of being smug, it’s because generally you’re so shocked that folks think actually believe a threat like that would even register on anything but your funny bone scale. Again, if I believe it’s not relevant and it’s imaginary, I’m going to look at you like you’ve lost it completely because you can’t seriously have listened to anything I’ve ever said. But again, it’s because, if you do believe that, it’s a really scary threat for you. What if some one said pissing off Vulcan will mean you’re going to get struck by lightening? What if some one told YOU that with a straight face?

    So, Brett, there’s no sins to forgive in Buddhism so how can something that teaches something is irrelevant and doesn’t exist be inferior? You’re telling Tiger everything will be okay on Christmas morning as long as he leaves his cookies and milk out for Santa.

    What does it mean to be  plain ignorant in front of that many people, let alone rude and socially unacceptable?  I don’t think Brett Hume’s mother raised him to be that rude, but I may be wrong. I’m sure Tiger’s recovery process will not depend on Brett Hume’s theology, even though the arrogant Hume seems to think so.

  • I know you think I spend a lot of time obsessing on financial market regulations. Part of this obsession is an occupational hazard, but a good deal of it has to do with how close I am supposed to be to cashing in on a well-earned retirement while rectifying my retirement savings with the worst decade of stock returns ever. So, here I am referring to Bloomberg again.

    This time the person of interest is Mary Shapiro and the regulator is the SEC. Yup, I’m off the Fed for at least one thread. The article today is Wall Street Waits as SEC Fails to Bring Madoff-Inspired Reforms. I’m trying to fight off my gut feeling that everything’s been a Ponzi Scheme recently while writing this particular thread. Still, I have to feel a bit admiration for Shapiro who has probably walked into the nation’s most neglected regulator since the Bush decade of corporate decadence made it the rubberstamp of millionaire investment bankers.

    Shapiro’s really been putting in the hours. Here’s one of the things that’s been tops on my list as an academic that researches financial economics, the ratings agencies, as well as the one market that really came apart at the seems last year, that for money market accounts which are more depository and less speculative than the current rules recognize.

    The SEC is reviewing public comments on the still- unfinished credit-rating rules, which would require companies such as Moody’s Investors Service and Standard & Poor’s to disclose how much revenue they get from their biggest clients and subject their employees to the same liability standards as auditors.

    Schapiro also has yet to complete work on rules for money market funds. After last year’s collapse of the $62.5 billion Reserve Primary Fund, the Obama administration called the industry a “significant source of systemic risk.” SEC commissioners plan to vote next year on a proposal to force funds to hold a bigger share of their assets in investments that are easy to liquidate.

    Still there is so much work to be done to get the entire regulatory scheme into the 21st century that you have to feel like she has a Sisyphean task ahead. Hedge funds have been pressing hard to avoid any curbs on short-selling. Naked Shorts have frequently been a source of great volatility in markets. She’s also seeking more authority to run more comprehensive examinations of the holders of the nation’s largest accounts. That’s not buying her many fans on Wall Street and the lobbyists have, of course, have managed to stall some of those attempts.

    All and all, anything that leads to increased translucence and standardization of processes reduces information asymmetry and lets the public know about their investments is a good regulation. This type of regulation actually increases the functioning of the market rather than burdens it. Hopefully, the Democrat congress will see more benefit to updating the regulation of financial markets than it’s republican predecessors. Still, the intense involvement of the financial community in the Obama campaign was hard to miss and the distinct lack of support for tougher regulation is hard to miss. The financial lobby has deep pockets and broad influence in the nation’s capitol.

    Some of the toughest battles over regulation have to do with giving stockholders more influence over Board of directors with their role of setting executive pay and perks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful lobby, hates these efforts.

    The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents more than 3 million companies, called the SEC plan “unworkable” in an August letter. The nation’s largest business lobby has also been discussing with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP attorneys a strategy for suing the SEC, said Tom Quaadman, a Chamber executive director.

    By September, Schapiro’s staff began telling investors that the so-called proxy-access rules wouldn’t be in place for 2010 director elections. In October, the SEC publicly announced the delay.

    Schapiro said the SEC still hopes to approve the rule in the first three months of 2010. “It’s a pretty profound change to the fabric of corporate governance,” she said in the interview. “We need to do it carefully and thoughtfully.”

    Her agenda has sometimes been driven by political pressure, said James Angel, a finance professor at Georgetown University in Washington who has served as an adviser to stock exchanges.

    One of the most interesting portions of this article was the interplay reported between Congress and the SEC. You may want to read that portion alone. Here are two noteworthy efforts by Barney Frank and Charles Schumer.

    The effort to curtail short-selling, in which traders borrow stock and sell it, hoping to profit by replacing the shares at a lower price, followed lobbying from Democratic lawmakers after the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index fell 19 percent in the first two months of the year.

    Representative Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee — the SEC’s overseer in the House — announced Schapiro’s plans for her at a March 10 press conference. The Massachusetts Democrat said he was “hopeful,” after speaking with the SEC boss, that she’d reinstate the uptick rule “within a month.” The SEC in 2007 had scrapped the rule, which required investors to wait for the price of a stock to rise before executing short sales.

    In July, the prodding came from Senator Charles Schumer. The New York Democrat urged Schapiro, a political independent, to ban flash orders, which such trading venues as Direct Edge Holdings LLC were using to take market share from NYSE Euronext.

    They’re also seeking to give the SEC authority over derivatives which have been the estranged stepchild of regualtion for some time now.

    Traders use the mostly unregulated contracts to speculate on everything from interest rates to oil prices, and companies use them to protect against losses. Obama administration officials say a lack of transparency in the $605 trillion derivatives market exacerbated the credit crisis and contributed to the near-failure of American International Group Inc., once the world’s biggest insurer.

    Under lawmakers’ plans, banks and investors would trade contracts on regulated platforms that are monitored by the SEC and Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Having won the battle to share oversight of derivatives with the CFTC, Schapiro now must prove that her agency can manage the new responsibility. In preparation, she has hired economists and former Wall Street traders to add market expertise to an agency staff made up mostly of attorneys.

    I’d like to think that Shapiro, Frank, Schumer and the Justice Department will work this year on ending the mishmash of old regulations and no regulation that has characterized the century so far. It’s probably no coincidence that the unraveling of most of the banking laws meant to stave off a Great Depression happened prior to the Great Recession. That’s not saying that we need to re-erect the old laws word-for-word. It simply means that we need to recognize that financial markets are somewhat like football games. The work a lot better when you can watch the re-plays and see all the angles of the plays, and when there’s an agreed upon set of rules that every one knows and follows. It also helps to have a set of really good referees to watch the players and enforce the rules and that’s where the FED and the SEC come in. Financial regulation shouldn’t be a burden to any market participant. If anything, regulation should provide a playing field where every one can enjoy the game. Especially, those of us that either rely on the game for our living or our retirements. The country can’t afford another decade of lost returns.

  • I was pouring over the jobless numbers this morning with my students. The overall numbers suggest that we’re no longer hemorrhaging jobs and that some employers maybe considering some hiring. There is one number in there that I found really disturbing. This is what I read this morning at MarketWatch which is where I always go to get short, precise updates of financial/economic data.

    Still, a record 55.1% of the unemployed have lost their job permanently, a sign that the labor market is undergoing structural changes as well as a cyclical downturn.

    Paul Krugman has an interesting graph up at his blog at NYTIMES as well as a warning that the move from 10.2 % unemployment rate to 10% may cause policy makers to lose their sense of urgency.  This graph is the projected unemployment being used by the FOMC.  You can see that they are still expecting a rate above the NAIRU until the end of 2012.  Looking at the number I found on structural unemployment, the joblessness rate may peak soon, but I doubt it will come down quite that fast.

    Structural unemployment comes from the most toxic of all possible sources of joblessness.  It basically means there’s a mismatch between job skills of job seekers and jobs available.   Christine Romer, economic adviser to POTUS, points to the numbers as “hopeful”. (Why do I get the willies now whenever I see that word come out of the White House?) You can see the definite trend towards moderation of joblessness in the graph she’s posted there.  The other good news in the numbers is that the number of temp jobs available continues to be on the rise.  This is usually a precursor to permanent hires.

    Additional issues that I see with the rate can be found again in the unspun numbers back at MarketWatch.

    The employment participation rate fell to 65% from 65.1% as the labor force dropped by 98,000. The employment-population ratio was steady at 58.5%.

    The unemployment rate fell for most major demographic groups. For whites, the rate fell to 9.3% from 9.5%. For blacks, the jobless rate dropped to 15.6% from 15.7%. For Hispanics, it fell to 12.7% from 13.1%. For men, it was 10.5%; for women, 7.9%; for teens, 26.7%.

    First, we continue that Black and Hispanic Americans continue to bear the brunt of the bad job market.  Both Asian and White Americans continue to have the lowest rates as well as the best rate of improvement. This is also a really bad job market for young folks.  Women continue to hold onto their jobs more then men.  Again, a lot of this is due to the vast difference in wages paid to women.  We tend to be hired on the cheap.

    The other curious piece of information is that the employment participation rate continues to go down.  This could be for several reasons.  Discouraged workers and long term unemployed people could be giving up.  It could also signal a return to school or early retirement.  This numbers deserves some exploration.  I’m hoping some labor economists dig into it further.

    The NY Times today emphasized a bit more of the good news in the numbers.

    Still, the November jobs report was more encouraging than most forecasters had expected. Apart from the unexpectedly small number of lost jobs, there was a surge in the hiring of temporary workers and the workweek lengthened, suggesting that thousands of workers on shortened schedules got some or all of their hours restored.

    Although average hourly pay for most workers rose by only one cent, to $18.74, average weekly earnings rose smartly to $622.17 from $618.09 — reflecting the increase in hours, which employers coming out of a recession often do before hiring more people.

    Since I’m not a labor economist, I have to say that a lot of what I feel right now about this report comes from my gut more than anything, but I’m personally worried that we’re seeing a large number of people that will be left on the sidelines during the next upswing.  I’m still not seeing any kind of emphasis on job training or re-schooling of people in some key industries that seem to be undergoing permanent downsizing.  Primary among these folks are those associated with the automobile manufacturing industry but it seems that drugmakers may be putting chemists into that category also.  I keep getting the feeling that the approach right now is to just send every one back to nursing school. Some how, I don’t think that’s going to be a long run solution to the problem.  Perhaps green technologies will use some of these folks into new fields, but I’m not overly optimistic.  I’m also pretty certain that we can’t turn them all into teacher and sales clerks at Walmart either.  So, this gives me some concern.  Again, I’m a financial economist not a labor economist, but I just believe that we need to get on top of this fairly quickly or we’re going to see a lot of middle aged, unemployed workers with no place to go that don’t have the luxury of going back to college.

  • BadDog_05It’s not often that you get enough evidence of rent-seeking you can actually find it entered into a public record. Leave it to Stupakistan to show the incredible power of insurance and other nondepository financial institutions to leave their fingerprints without shame on the public policy debate over the healthcare payments system. It looks like the middle men are definitely winning on this one. Check out this article at the NYT today by Robert Pea with damning headline “In House, Many Spoke with One Voice: Lobbyists’. “

    We have to get corporate money out of politics.  It’s essential to preserving our republic with its aspirational democratic roots.

    In the official record of the historic House debate on overhauling health care, the speeches of many lawmakers echo with similarities. Often, that was no accident.

    Statements by more than a dozen lawmakers were ghostwritten, in whole or in part, by Washington lobbyists working for Genentech, one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies.

    E-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that the lobbyists drafted one statement for Democrats and another for Republicans.

    Notice that it’s an equal opportunity rent-seeking opportunity.  Lobbyists are carefully crafting their message to play to whatever base will fall for it.  If there ever is evidence that public policy is being high jacked by parasites of the market–those third party payers that bring no value and only layers of costs and confusion to the process–this is it.  Unfortunately, people are so dependent on their insurance companies, they fail to see they need to rid themselves of the fleas.

    The lobbyists, employed by Genentech and by two Washington law firms, were remarkably successful in getting the statements printed in the Congressional Record under the names of different members of Congress.

    Genentech, a subsidiary of the Swiss drug giant Roche, estimates that 42 House members picked up some of its talking points — 22 Republicans and 20 Democrats, an unusual bipartisan coup for lobbyists.

    In an interview, Representative Bill Pascrell Jr., Democrat of New Jersey, said: “I regret that the language was the same. I did not know it was.” He said he got his statement from his staff and “did not know where they got the information from.”

    Yea, right.  You’re so frigging business with things and you have so few staff you can’t actually read the bills, get information on the problems in the market, and find solutions for yourself.  You just have to rely on people with stakes in the status quo.

    In recent years, Genentech’s political action committee and lobbyists for Roche and Genentech have made campaign contributions to many House members, including some who filed statements in the Congressional Record. And company employees have been among the hosts at fund-raisers for some of those lawmakers. But Evan L. Morris, head of Genentech’s Washington office, said, “There was no connection between the contributions and the statements.”

    Mr. Morris said Republicans and Democrats, concerned about the unemployment rate, were receptive to the company’s arguments about the need to keep research jobs in the United States.

    Maybe RD can clear up the connection between what they’re demanding congress keep in their cookie jar and the outsourcing of science jobs to the cheapest market, but my guess is it’s just a convenient excuse unless you actually force them to keep the jobs IN THE COUNTRY in the wording of the legislation.  They’ll go where the cheapest options are because corporations have ONLY one goal.  That is MAXIMIZING PROFIT.  Renting seeking and ruthless cost-cutting play right into that.  Also, gaining market share and power so you can manipulate the price and quantity–especially on a price insensitive (inelastic) item like drugs and health care.  When you need them you need them and you’re likely to rearrange your budget and everything else to get them; especially if it’s a matter of life and death.

    My guess is we have a lot of gullible shills in Stupakistan.

    Mr. Brady’s chief of staff, Stanley V. White, said he had received the draft statement from a lobbyist for Genentech’s parent company, Roche.

    “We were approached by the lobbyist, who asked if we would be willing to enter a statement in the Congressional Record,” Mr. White said. “I asked him for a draft. I tweaked a couple of words. There’s not much reason to reinvent the wheel on a Congressional Record entry.”

    Some differences were just a matter of style. Representative Yvette D. Clarke, Democrat of New York, said, “I see this bill as an exciting opportunity to create the kind of jobs we so desperately need in this country, while at the same time improving the lives of all Americans.”

    Representative Donald M. Payne, Democrat of New Jersey, used the same words, but said the bill would improve the lives of “ALL Americans.”

    Mr. Payne and Mr. Brady said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest technology minds.” Mr. Pascrell said the bill would “create new opportunities and markets for our brightest minds in technology.”

    My guess is these brains in congress were the same ones that talked their brainy class mates into sharing their homework and rephrased it just enough to pass the professor’s scrutiny or most like the professor’s grad student’s scrutiny.

    There is something incredibly wrong in our governing process when a group of powerful nonvoting constituents get to write the voice of public policy.  If your congressman is on this list, find an alternative, FAST!!!

    digg!!! tweet!!! share!!!

    Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

    Add to: Facebook | Digg | Del.icio.us | Stumbleupon | Reddit | Blinklist | Twitter | Technorati | Furl | Newsvine

  • In what is undoubtedly good news, the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (Dept. of Commerce) has announced that REAL GDP grew byantique devil tarot card approximately 3.5% in the third quarter of 2009. That is up from the second quarter growth of .7%. It appears that the economy may be rebounding from the so-called “Great Recession”. However, as with everything, the devil is in the details and the details show that this occurred because of government support. This will be good news for those folks that supported the Stimulus Plan. Details underlying the growth still show that the private sector, however, has yet to pick up slack. This means the growth has not worked its way through the economy in a way that makes it firmly sustainable. The increase in Consumer spending seem rooted firmly in the cash-for-clunkers program as well as the tax credits to first time home buyers. These programs have ended so now we have to look for sustainable consumer spending in areas not financially supported by government programs.

    Policy makers will now focus on whether the recovery, supported by federal assistance to the housing and auto industries, can be sustained into 2010 and generate jobs. The record $1.4 trillion budget deficit limits President Barack Obama’s options for more aid, while Federal Reserve officials try to convince investors that the central bank will exit emergency programs in time to prevent a pickup in inflation.

    “A lot of this is thanks to government support,” Kathleen Stephansen, chief economist at Aladdin Capital Holdings LLC in Stamford, Connecticut, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television. “The consumer, in fact private demand in general, is not ready yet to pick up the growth baton from the government.”

    There has yet to be any signs that improvements will be permanent. The Labor Market, traditionally sticky, has yet to turn around in a fundamentally good way.

    A report from the Labor Department showed 530,000 workers filed claims for jobless benefits last week, more than anticipated and signaling the job market is slow to heal even as growth picks up.

    There is an extremely good piece over at Naked Capitalism that explains the situation right now called “The choice is between increasing or decreasing aggregate demand” written by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.

    (It’s a bit wonky so be forwarned.)

    As I see it, the issue we are debating has to do with how the government responds when large debts in the private sector constrain demand for credit in the face of a severe economic shock and fall in aggregate demand. In short, if private sector debt levels are so high that a recession precipitates private sector credit revulsion, how should government respond?

    pigsThis is a good question as it gets to the heart of what to do next if you’re the government and it reflects reality on the ground which are the constraints facing the economy due to continuing credit market problems. The one thing that the discussion fails to address is the fact that quantitative easing by the Fed is not feeding into the credit markets as much as it appears to be feeding a bubble on Wall Street eagerly supported by the Great Vampire Squid and other enemies spawning in the unfathomable deep. The article focuses on the paradox of thrift and the question “Do we really want the private sector to save at the moment?”

    The deal is, we’ve plenty of money circulating through the financial markets at the moment because of actions by the FOMC and of course, the Treasury. The problem is where it’s going. Easy money is financing merger activities and arbitrage rather than underlying investment that promotes long run economic growth. This is the same bubble-producing activity that brings us to no good ends. We really don’t need savings as much to fund business as much as we need business to feel like it can make commitments to job-producing, goods and servicing producing capital investments funded by the financial sector that should be forced to stop its casino banking activities. If anything, we need savers to step up and buy government debt, sort’ve an any bonds today movement to stop our reliance on foreign sources and free ourselves of obligations to human rights violators like the Chinese and Saudis.

    (more…)