Wednesday Morning Reads

Good Morning!!!

I thought I’d give you reason to be glad that Bobby Jindal the Terrible isn’t your governor.  He’s tearing around the country trying to start up his presidential wannabe campaign and we’ve just about had it with him.  This is from Baton Rouge’s The Advocate.  He singled out some woman professor as the poster child for unnecessary research in his new book.  He’s been out pimping for the book ala other Republican Governor Presidential Idiot Wannabes that want to be independently wealthy before they take the plunge to New Hampshire.  The poor anthropology professor was doing a longitudinal story on Russian Mail Order Brides and their U.S. husbands.  It turns out the research was funded by a grant and not tax payers too.  That didn’t stop Jindal from tearing into the article in his book or fact-checking his words or reading the article for that matter.

Read the entire Op-Ed piece and be appalled that some one with so many educational opportunities in his life wants to deny so many others that opportunity and force them into oil rig serfdom.  Baton Rouge is not exactly a bastion of liberalism so this piece may be a good sign that he’s wearing out his welcome here.   The article even sneakily mentions the one university that should be shut down and a trio of universities that should be merged because they are all in the middle of nowhere and have fewer students than most high schools. Jindal would never man up and do that. Instead he’s just draining ever useful and viable university by 1/3 of their budget a year. He’s sucking the life out of LSU, the med centers, and the law school.  LSU has consistently rated among the top public universities in the country.  Jindal obviously prefers we all go to community colleges instead.

Stop this man before he can do more damage any where else!!

Gov. Bobby Jindal’s machine of aides, bloggers, talk radio hosts and boutique publishers has turned its focus on college professors and what they do.

They attacked sabbatical study last week as a waste of money that takes teachers out of the classroom. The governor criticized scholarly study as unworthy of taxpayer dollars because such research fails to “create better lives and more job opportunities.”

At the base of this hubbub is Jindal’s apparent desire that higher education’s top officials just shut up and accept deep cuts he has planned for public college and university budgets
It all has the absurdity of season ticket holders dictating that the LSU Tigers no longer hold huddles because the quarterback’s primary job is to throw touchdowns.

If you haven’t ventured into Jindal’s ‘scholarly work’ at the New Oxford Review, please do so!!!   It’s called BEATING A DEMON ; Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare. It’s all about participating in an exorcism.

”The crucifix had a calming effect on Susan, and her sister was soon brave enough to bring a Bible to her face. At first, Susan responded to biblical pas­sages with curses and profanities. Mixed in with her vile attacks were short and desperate pleas for help. In the same breath that she attacked Christ, the Bible’s authenticity, and everyone assembled in prayer, Susan would suddenly urge us to rescue her. It appeared as if we were observing a tremendous battle between the Susan we knew and loved and some strange evil force. But the momentum had shifted and we now sensed that victory was at hand.”

Maybe Jindal the Terrible should consider signing up for the new recruiting effort by the Catholic Church for exorcists and leave those of us that prefer science, rational thought, and education alone.  This is what you get when you vote for people without researching them carefully.

So, just when you think politicians couldn’t get any more elitist and just plain whacked, this brings me to something BostonBoomer, Pilgrim and I have been discussing.  The book is called ‘C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy’ by Jeff Sharlet.  It’s the follow-up to a book called ‘The Family’. Both let you know how many of our country’s most important institutions–like Congress and the military–have been invaded by crazy people.  Bart Stupak, John Ensign, Tom Coburn, and Jim Inhofe are among the resident nutjobs of this frat boyz for jeezus club.  This group of good ol’ boys supports some of the most villainous, heinous murders in the world you could imagine because they believe being rich is a sign that you are chosen by god.  They helped Papa Doc. They helped Suharto.  Here’s a bit from the author about David Coe, one of the C Street Family.

What was the concept? “Men who are picked by God!” Not the many, but the few. Under Coe’s guidance, Family politicians embraced the idea that God prefers the services of a dedicated elite to the devotion of the masses. “I have had a great and thrilling experience reading the condensed version of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, ” one of Coe’s lieutenants wrote him after Coe had given him a reading list for “the Work,” as their mission was often called. “Doug, what a lesson in vision and perspective! Nazism started with seven guys around a table in the back of an old German Beer Hall. The world has been shaped so drastically by a few men who really want it such and so. How we need this same kind of stuff as a Hitler or a Lenin.” That is, for Jesus, of course

You don’t get to call it a Godwin when a group does it to itself on its own, do you?

Okay, so those poor little put out TSA staff are now speaking out about all the trauma that they have to endure.  People actually yell at them!!!  Poor babies!!!   This is from the Daily Mail.

‘It is not comfortable to come to work knowing full well that my hands will be feeling another man’s private parts, their butt, their inner thigh,’ one told the BoardingArea blog.

‘Even worse is having to try and feel inside the flab rolls of obese passengers and we seem to get a lot of obese passengers!’

Another said he had a huge problem dealing with a ‘large number of passengers… daily that have a problem understanding what personal hygiene is.’

Well, that’s a thought.  If you’re going to travel, don’t shower for days and that will certainly raise a stink for them!  What, they thought  they were only going to get to feel up super models?  Was that in the recruiting ads some where?  Maybe they should consider quitting or complaining to their boss, John Pistole.

Just a quick heads up. Wikileaks tweeted that Wikileaks said, “Next release is 7x the size of the Iraq War Logs. Intense pressure over it for months,” and asked supporters to continue donating to the cause.  We need to start up an Ellsberg Prize for Truth.

The always outspoken Congressman Barny Frank defended Ben Bernanke and the QE2. Additionally he called Republican detractors to be more in line with China than U.S. interests.

Frank said that in the absence of additional fiscal measures, the Fed’s asset purchases are an appropriate response.

“I wish we had some more fiscal stimulus,” said Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat. “In the absence of that, given unemployment, given the complete absence of inflation, he is doing a very reasonable thing.”

The Fed has been making speeches before congress and exercising monetary policy in concern of both inflation and unemployment since the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Law was passed in 1978.  I wasn’t really aware that there was anything questionable about that goal until Bostonboomer called my attention to this over at the NYT.
It seems that some Republicans want to limit the Fed’s policy scope to inflation fighting only.  This further convinces me that they have no interest in putting Americans back to work.  I’ve pretty much decided that most of the hoopla over QE2 is from financial interests who really don’t want to lend money at reasonable rates any more.  This also brings me in mind of that thought.

The Fed’s being using a modified Taylor rule for some time and has very much taken a stand in keeping with Anna Schwartz and  Milton Friedman’s seminal work on the Great Depression.  That’s the CONSERVATIVE economist Milton Friedman, remember him?  He basically said that the FED botched monetary policy and let deflation ruin the economy. What most conservatives don’t get these days–probably because they never actually both to read anything factual–is that Friedman’s analysis owes a lot to Keynes.

Read this and see if you see any similarities.

FDR was inaugurated on March 4, 1933, and two days later he declared a “bank holiday,” allowing banks legally to refuse withdrawals by depositors; it lasted ten days. With his famous phrase, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself,” he intended to dissuade depositors from running on their banks, but by then it was far too late. In 1929 there were a total of 25,000 banks in the United States. As the bank holiday ended, only 12,000 banks were operating (though another 3,000 were to reopen eventually). The effect on the money supply was equally dramatic. From 1929 to 1933 it fell by 27 percent—for every $3 in circulation in 1929 (whether in currency or deposits), only $2 was left in 1933. Such a drastic fall in the money supply inevitably led to a massive decrease in aggregate demand. People’s savings were wiped out so their natural response was to save more to compensate, leading to plummeting consumption spending. Naturally, total economic output also fell dramatically: GDP was 29 percent lower in 1933 than in 1929. And the unemployment rate hit its historic high of 25 percent in 1933.

Friedman and Schwartz argued that all this was due to the Fed’s failure to carry out its assigned role as the lender of last resort. Rather than providing liquidity through loans, the Fed just watched as banks dropped like flies, seemingly oblivious to the effect this would have on the money supply. The Fed could have offset the decrease created by bank failures by engaging in bond purchases, but it did not. As Milton and Rose Friedman wrote in Free to Choose:

The [Federal Reserve] System could have provided a far better solution by engaging in large-scale open market purchases of government bonds. That would have provided banks with additional cash to meet the demands of their depositors. That would have ended—or at least sharply reduced—the stream of bank failures and have prevented the public’s attempted conversion of deposits into currency from reducing the quantity of money. Unfortunately, the Fed’s actions were hesitant and small. In the main, it stood idly by and let the crisis take its course—a pattern of behavior that was to be repeated again and again during the next two years.

According to Friedman and Schwartz, this was a complete abdication of the Fed’s core responsibilities—responsibilities it had taken away from the commercial bank clearinghouses that had acted to mitigate panics before 1914—and was the primary cause of the Great Depression.

Okay, what exactly is the QE2 then?  It’s large scale buying of treasury bonds.  Why are they doing it?  Because the Federal Government is not doing it’s job with the fiscal policy end.  We had a stimulus that was way too weak and way too loaded with stuff that doesn’t stimulate very well and now we’ve got these idiots around talking about deficits and inflation.  It’s like their trying to actively sabotage the economy!

Alright, well, I think I’m hitting MABLUE’s limit for being long winded so I’ll stop now. I need to go to the grocery store and see a man about some trade statistics.

What’s on your blogging and reading list today?

All Hail the Corporatist in Chief

Any one who thinks the Democratic Party or the Democratic President represent the interests of the little guy in this oh you asscountry can’t be reading any newspapers. I’ve always thought that the Republican Party overly favored big business and was out to set up monopolies for all its cronies. It’s hard to believe anyone aligning themselves with liberal interests  or even a real conservative could support the continuing infusion of cash, tax cuts, and legal breaks to industries that are squeezing the profits out of both workers and businesses that actually make something or do something. The middlemen are now running the country and snatching its wealth.

First, there’s this Politico Story where even the headline offends my sensibilities of justice and fairplay: Dem officials set stage for corporate-backed health care campaign. The President’s undisclosed meetings are reminding me more and more of the Dubya/Cheney years.

At a meeting last April with corporate lobbyists, aides to President Barack Obama and Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.) helped set in motion a multimillion-dollar advertising campaign, primarily financed by industry groups, that has played a key role in bolstering public support for health care reform.

The role Baucus’s chief of staff, Jon Selib, and deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina played in launching the groups was part of a successful effort by Democrats to enlist traditional enemies of health care reform to their side. No quid pro quo was involved, they insist, as do the lobbyists themselves.

The result has been a somewhat unlikely alliance between an administration that came into power criticizing George W. Bush for his closeness to Big Business and groups such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and the American Medical Association.

The previously undisclosed meeting April 15 at the offices of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee led to the creation of two groups — Americans for Stable Quality Care and a now-defunct predecessor group called Healthy Economy Now — that have spent tens of millions of dollars on TV advertising supporting health reform efforts.

No sooner had I read that then I went to WaPo and found this one: Bailed-Out Banks Raking In Big Profits.

The nation’s largest banks, preserved from failure by federal aid and romping in markets revived by federal aid, are racking up vast profits even as the broader economy struggles to emerge from recession.

While loan losses continue to mount, the banks are making it up on Wall Street, trading in stocks, bonds and other financial instruments, and collecting fees for services such as helping companies raise money.

Goldman Sachs and Citigroup reported third-quarter profits Thursday, joining J.P. Morgan Chase in outstripping the expectations of financial analysts and solidifying their places as among the banks that have benefited most from the government’s massive rescue of the financial industry.

Of course, I’ve been advocating for better control of the shadow banking system for as long as I can remember. These guys are now  out in the day light and acting like the financial crisis never even happened. They’re in better market position than they have ever been and are now using it to sell portfolios back and forth to run up paper profits. Not only that, the so-called defenders of the little guy are not only doing nothing, they’re doing worse than nothing. HelenK brought my attention to this one from the NY Times: Bill Shields Most Banks From Review. Just when you thought their loanshark-like lending practices which contributed so heavily to the bad economy and so many job losses would be exposed, Barney the Congressman (not the Dinosaur) shows where his bread is buttered.

Bowing to political pressure from community bankers, the House Financial Services Committee approved an exemption on Thursday for more than 98 percent of the nation’s banks from oversight by a new agency created to protect consumers from abusive or deceptive credit cards, mortgages and other loans, The New York Times’s Stephen Labaton reported.

The carve-out in legislation overhauling the regulatory system would prevent the new consumer financial protection agency from conducting annual examinations of the lending practices at more than 8,000 of the nation’s 8,200 banks, leaving only the largest banks and other lenders subject to the agency’s examiners.

Earlier in the day, the committee completed its work on a different contentious provision of the legislation when, on a nearly straight party-line vote of 43 to 26, it approved tougher regulations over the derivatives market. That provision, too, contained exemptions for many businesses.

The exemption for the banks was endorsed by the chairman, Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who saw it as necessary to win support for the overall bill from the committee’s moderate and conservative Democrats. Their support is particularly important because the Republicans are unified against the legislation.

How much longer can our national wealth and legislative process support people that basically do nothing for a living but act as cost inducing middle men in markets? Insurance companies and Investment bankers have very little value added. They just run up costs between the real customers and the real producers of the goods and services. Why are they being protected and why is their profit grabbing ability being enhanced by the democrats in Washington?

Just so you know where the real damage lies, take a look at the USA today headline: Wages tumble toward 18-year low.

Average weekly wages have fallen 1.4% this year for private-sector workers through September, after adjusting for inflation, to $616.11, a USA TODAY analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found. If that trend holds, it will mark the biggest annual decline in real wages since 1991.

The bureau’s data cover 82% of private-sector workers but exclude managers and some higher-paid professionals.

“Wages are usually the last thing to deteriorate in a recession,” says economist Heidi Shierholz of the liberal Economic Policy Institute. “But it’s happening now, and wages are probably going to be held down for a long time.”

Insurance companies and financial middle men do nothing but stand between the consumer and the producer. They add tremendous levels of cost and confusion to those markets and have no gone from helping businesses manage risk to creating more of it. They are anomalies or so-called frictions in a market economy. We does our President and our Congress keep feeding the Sharks and the Vampire Squids?

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


Speechification Alert

Great illustration in today's New York Times:  Banker's and the taxpayer cookie jar

Who stole the Cookies from the Cookie jar?Great illustration in today's New York Times: Banker's and the taxpayer cookie jar

Well, it’s my turn to listen to a Obama Speech. Those speeches usually have the same dizzying effect on me that tennis matches do. Instead of watching balls go back and forth rhythmically while lulling me to sleep, I get to watch the head of the President. Teleprompter Right, 1,2,3 to Teleprompter left, 2, 3 …

So the speech is on bank reform which is something I’ve been on about for months now. It’s the anniversary of Lehman’s demise. Stories abound on the Grey Lady today including this call by Dr. Tyler Cowen of George Mason University. He’s a little libertarian for my taste on policy–even managing a h/t to Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged–but he gets it all in a way that only an economist could.

But we are now injecting politics ever more deeply into the American economy, whether it be in finance or in sectors like health care. Not only have we failed to learn from our mistakes, but also we’re repeating them on an ever-larger scale.

Lately the surviving major banks have reported brisk profits, yet in large part this reflects astute politicking and lobbying rather than commercial skill. Much of the competition was cleaned out by bank failures and consolidation, so giants like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan had an easier time getting back to profits. The Federal Reserve has been lending to banks at near-zero interest rates while paying higher interest on the reserves the banks hold at the Fed. “Too big to fail” policies mean that the large banks can raise money more cheaply because everyone knows they are safe counterparties.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned of the birth of a military-industrial complex. Today we have a financial-regulatory complex, and it has meant a consolidation of power and privilege. We’ve created a class of politically protected “too big to fail” institutions, and the current proposals for regulatory reform further cement this notion. Even more worrying, with so many explicit and implicit financial guarantees, we are courting a bigger financial crisis the next time something major goes wrong.

We should stop using political favors as a means of managing an economic sector. Unfortunately, though, recent experience with health care reform shows we are moving in the opposite direction and not heeding the basic lessons of the financial crisis. Finance and health care are two separate issues, of course, but in both cases we’re making the common mistake of digging in durable political protections for special interest groups.

I have to admit that I’ve written about similar concerns, however, I can tell Cowen and I may differ on how to correct the situation. That’s typically true of most economists. We agree on the root causes because of our grounding in shared theory but argue which policy might be best based on our political bent. I continue to argue for the role of government as rule setter and referee. However, I really do prefer independent bureaucrats in the position of auditor and enforcer. Congress, however, still has to write the law. This action, to date, has been missing.

So, MarketWatch has provided a pre-speechification programme so that we can get our score card ready. The speech is supposed to “rekindle” interest in regulatory restructuring. I’m not sure we need restructuring so much as we need laws that recognize the systematic problems we’ve developed in financial markets since quants have turned asset pricing into a physics exercise, financial innovations have become exotic, and the entire set up is now one big cartel waiting to pounce on the unsuspecting business sector and consumer. We now have a small number of banks capable of funding the really big capital undertakings and who knows what priorities or friends they’ll choose to fund over positive net present value projects? This should be enough to send any capitalist running for government regulation. Also, get ready for lack of services and fees that would make a loan shark blush. This should make any advocate for the little guy scream for the same. Today, I am the jade dakini. It’s happening in Europe but I doubt it will happen here.

So, what is Obama said to be inkling tomorrow that will be undoubtedly be sacrificed to the demons of political expediency down the road?

Read the rest of this entry »